Re: [rfc] dont use absolute paths in ldscripts if they arent needed

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Sunday 02 April 2006 13:32, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 01:25:49PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > yes and no ... the way we're cross building/installing glibc now, the
> > patch is no longer "needed" ... but the paths themselves are pointless
> > when the files are together
>
> No, they aren't.  They guarantee that a libc.so.6 somewhere else on
> your path won't be used.

the linker will perform a search for libc.so.6 before the current path (of the 
ldscript) ?  if that's the case, then dropping the absolute paths wouldnt 
work

> All your different explanations have completely lost me as to where you
> needed this patch.

i'm not saying it's needed, i started the thread to see if there is any real 
point to having absolute paths when libdir==slibdir

> I think you only need it if you're trying to abuse --with-sysroot.

the patch is needed when using sysrooted ld with an incorrect prefix for 
glibc ... one thing we experimented with was this patch and rather than 
simply discard it since we've moved on to other methods, i thought about 
getting it integrated if it proved useful.  the idea it may actually be 
useful was spurred by the fact that crosstool as well strips all paths from 
glibc linker scripts, but i dont have any history as to why it does that.
-mike