From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2769 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2012 15:01:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 2744 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2012 15:01:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FAKE_REPLY_C 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; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:01:08 +0000 Received: from bsmtp by cheddar.halon.org.uk with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeS5S-0007dp-G9 for libc-ports@sourceware.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:01:06 +0000 Received: from steve by tack.local with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TeS5P-00059R-DY for libc-ports@sourceware.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:01:03 +0000 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:01:00 -0000 From: Steve McIntyre To: libc-ports@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Check for the FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 flag in the ldconfig cache Message-ID: <20121130150057.GA14394@einval.com> 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00145.txt.bz2 On 28 November 2012 20:58, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:04:34PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: >>Use the new FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 ldconfig cache tag for AArch64, >>similarly to the way tags are handled for other architectures. >> >>======================================================== >> >>Check for the FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 flag in the ldconfig cache >> >> * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/aarch64/dl-cache.h: New file. >> >>Signed-off-by: Steve McIntyre > > Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell > > This looks good to me. > > Markus, as the AArch64 maintainer, should have the final word and > check it in. > > Feel free to include my Reviewed-by: in the git commit logs to track > reviews. Hmmm, problem: this adds checking for the new FLAG_AARCH64_LIB64 at runtime in ld.so, but nobody has (yet!) committed the code that will add that flag from ldconfig (in patch #3 in my set). That's partly my fault for not stating a direct dependency, I guess, but we'll need to fix that ASAP. Would you prefer to revert *this* patch or take that one too? Related to Joseph's comment about #1 in the set (tagging binaries based on interpreter names): splitting up ARM and AArch64 patches. I can easily split #1 that way if preferred, but to my mind it makes no sense to split #3 as it's a lump of common code that will run on both ARM and AArch64. What do people think about that, please? Cheers, -- Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@linaro.org Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs