From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21888 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2012 14:57:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 21871 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Apr 2012 14:57:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cheddar.halon.org.uk (HELO cheddar.halon.org.uk) (217.10.144.130) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:57:04 +0000 Received: from bsmtp by cheddar.halon.org.uk with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SFo7R-0006js-Sb; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:57:01 +0100 Received: from stemci01 by e102122-lin with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SFo6q-0001IQ-Ip; Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:56:24 +0100 Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:57:00 -0000 From: Steve McIntyre To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Michael Hope , libc-ports@sourceware.org, "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Richard Earnshaw , "cross-distro@lists.linaro.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Use different linker path for hardfloat ABI Message-ID: <20120405145624.GU2880@linaro.org> References: <20120329193401.GA14860@dannf.org> <4F75F2E2.3030909@arm.com> <20120402210653.GC28152@dannf.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-attached: none User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:56:18PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > >(c) Please include libc-ports on future submissions and provide both the >GCC patch and the glibc ports patch that have been tested to work together >to build and install the library in the given path; a patch to one >component like this cannot sensibly be considered in isolation. I imagine >you'll need appropriate ARM preconfigure support to detect what ABI the >compiler is using, much like the support for MIPS, so that the right >shlib-versions files are used. I try to follow all ARM glibc discussions >on libc-ports closely, as the ARM glibc maintainer; was there a previous >discussion of the dynamic linker naming issue there that I missed? (The >only previous relevant discussion that I recall is one on >patches@eglibc.org starting at >, regarding how the >dynamic linker should check that a library has the right ABI, and there >was no real followup on that after I indicated what would seem to be the >appropriate implementation approaches and places for subsequent >discussion.) Apologies, that was my fault - I was kept busy on other things and didn't get back to that. At the time it didn't seem so critical when we were still experimenting with other aspects of the system. I'll get back to that shortly... Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@linaro.org Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs