On Aug 11, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 16:30 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 01:47 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >>> revert this is not acceptable as that will break ppc64 builds. >>> >>> I think you need to look at 64bithack.patch and if we really should be >>> using it for multilib builds. >> >> This just sounds like gcc totally ignores the the library directory >> we're using and that is plain wrong :(. >> >> I'd much prefer gcc didn't make assumptions in this case and did what >> were were configuring it to do. That is why there is that 64bit hack >> there and I think gcc should be honouring however we configure the >> library directories, not doing what it thinks is best... > > I did more digging and this really just highlights why we have that > 64bit "hack" patch in the first place. > > GCC has internal multilib 'magic' which assumes certain library layout > in the 64 bit case. The implication is if you build 64 bit, you cannot > have baselib != "lib64". Whilst I can understand this on desktop system, > I'd suggest our build system has a better idea what its doing than most > and can cope without hardcoding things. > > This is why the default builds in the gcc config are set to "." by that > patch, that respects whatever base_libdir is set to. I'd suggest we do > this for x86, pcc and mips 64 bit and revert the origin baselib patch, > but this time better improve the patch documentation about why this is > necessary. > > Cheers, > > Richard
Khem had some feelings on this so I'll let him chime in - k _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
