On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:37:11PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>As promised, here's minutes from the call we had this
>afternoon. Spoiler: the result we've agreed is
>
> /lib/ld-linux-armhf.so.3
>
>And here's a transcription of the mi
Getting bounces from this message. Let's try again.
- Forwarded message from Steve McIntyre -
From: Steve McIntyre
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:37:55 +0100
To: cross-dis...@lists.linaro.org
Cc: Adam Conrad , linaro-toolch...@lists.linaro.org,
Jeff Law , libc-po...@sourcewar
Bugger, missed the thread fork and didn't send this invitation to
everybody yet.
- Forwarded message from Steve McIntyre -
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:06:09 +0100
From: Steve McIntyre
To: Jon Masters
Cc: cross-dis...@lists.linaro.org, Adam Conrad ,
linaro-t
stency.
Precisely who in Redhat/Fedora land has the power to make decisions in
this area? We've been clearly wasting our time thus far trying to
negotiate agreements about the hard-float platform.
Cheers,
--
Steve McIntyresteve.mcint...@linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
an attempt to make things cleaner for those of us that
care about having lots of different platforms supported in
parallel. Seen against that background, I was hoping that using the
multi-arch path for the armhf linker would make sense. For people that
don't care about multi-arch for thems
debian.org/Multiarch/Tuples
>
>is out of date. I prefer defining what is needed now and doing others
>as needed.
I'm most of the way through an update for that page now; I'll ask for
comments/review shortly.
Cheers,
--
Steve McIntyresteve.mcint...@linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
s then it's fine for the loader names to
>potentially collide as well.
>
>In practice they wouldn't as most architecture has a subtily different
>loader name (cf. ld.so.1 for MIPS, ld-linux.so.2 for i386, and
>ld-linux.so.3 for ARM).
Yes, thankfully. More by luck than a
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
of
the linker, but there was a worry that compatibility would be
broken. Apparently the Meego folks have released a hard-float system
using ld-linux.so.3 and were concerned about this.
Cheers,
--
Steve McIntyresteve.mcint...@linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
't see the point of
>having different dynamic linkers for those ABIs. One dynamic linker should
>handle both just fine.
That's been discussed previously, yes. While technically quite
feasible in terms of code, there's enough potential for confusion that
we though it was just simpler to use two different linker binaries.
Cheers,
--
Steve McIntyresteve.mcint...@linaro.org
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
10 matches
Mail list logo
