Phone call (was Re: Armhf dynamic linker path)
jakub at redhat.com
Thu Apr 12 07:47:29 UTC 2012
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:33:08AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 09:05, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote:
> >> All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it:
> > The directory should be /libhf/ or /libhfp/ for that for consistency
> > with all the other architectures. Note e.g. x86_64 dynamic linker
> > is /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2, not /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.
> For some value of consistency. x86_64, mips64, powerpc64 and sparc64
> install to /lib64. But on ia64 it is /lib/ld-linux-ia64.so.2 and on
ia64 installs in /lib, because it isn't a multilibbed architecture.
> s390x it is /lib/ld64.so.1 .
Ok, I forgot about this, I've tried to convince s390x folks to move it
to /lib64/ld64.so.1 many years ago, but that just didn't happen, so
/lib/ld64.so.1 is just a symlink to /lib64/ld64.so.1.
Upstream glibc binaries use /lib64/ld64.so.1 as their dynamic linker,
while all other packages use /lib/ld64.so.1 as that is hardcoded in gcc.
That is an argument that perhaps /lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3 could be
acceptable too, as it would follow the s390x model, I wouldn't be terribly
happy about that, but I could live with that.
More information about the linaro-toolchain