multiarch proposal
Matt Rice
ratmice@gmail.com
Fri May 2 12:49:00 GMT 2008
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Fri May 2 12:49:00 GMT 2008
- Previous message (by thread): multiarch proposal
- Next message (by thread): multiarch proposal
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de> wrote: > "Matt Rice" <ratmice@gmail.com> writes: > > >... > > anyhow... it doesn't seem like something which absolutely requires ld support, > > its just rather tedious when doing it at a distribution level having > > to manually specify everythings libdir... > > ld is just the one common point in all of this where a trivial change > would solve the problem. And the cost for systems not using it is a > measly stat call. yes, this is exactly why i've never bothered to build a system using the mechanism i described... maybe something similar to the construct member of struct cpp_dir in cpplib.h of gcc /* Routine to construct pathname, given the search path name and the HEADER we are trying to find, return a constructed pathname to try and open. If this is NULL, the constructed pathname is as constructed by append_file_to_dir. */ char *(*construct) (const char *header, cpp_dir *dir); this sort of mechanism might allow both our library layouts to be possible e.g. your platforms construct returns "%s/%s/lib%s.so", dir->name, arch, lib->name); e.g. any my platforms construct returns "%s/%s/%s/lib%s.so", dir->name, lib->name, arch, lib->name); though i'm not sure how to apply this when driven by linker scripts
- Previous message (by thread): multiarch proposal
- Next message (by thread): multiarch proposal
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list