* lib vs lib64?
@ 2011-07-28 14:15 Kumar Gala
2011-07-28 14:17 ` Phil Blundell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2011-07-28 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
With recent multilib changes for a pure 64-bit target (no multilib) should things be in /lib or /lib64?
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: lib vs lib64?
2011-07-28 14:15 lib vs lib64? Kumar Gala
@ 2011-07-28 14:17 ` Phil Blundell
2011-07-28 15:15 ` Tom Rini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-07-28 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 09:15 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> With recent multilib changes for a pure 64-bit target (no multilib) should things be in /lib or /lib64?
They should be in ${base_libdir}. Whether that's /lib or /lib64 is a
DISTRO choice I suppose.
p.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: lib vs lib64?
2011-07-28 14:17 ` Phil Blundell
@ 2011-07-28 15:15 ` Tom Rini
2011-07-28 15:45 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2011-07-28 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
On 07/28/2011 07:17 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 09:15 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> With recent multilib changes for a pure 64-bit target (no multilib) should things be in /lib or /lib64?
>
> They should be in ${base_libdir}. Whether that's /lib or /lib64 is a
> DISTRO choice I suppose.
Assuming the libc has been patched for that arch. Or do we no longer
need that change? I know there was a patch for mips64 to look at /lib
not /lib64 for ld.so, etc, etc.
--
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: lib vs lib64?
2011-07-28 15:15 ` Tom Rini
@ 2011-07-28 15:45 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2011-07-28 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 07:17 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 09:15 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> With recent multilib changes for a pure 64-bit target (no multilib) should things be in /lib or /lib64?
>>
>> They should be in ${base_libdir}. Whether that's /lib or /lib64 is a
>> DISTRO choice I suppose.
>
> Assuming the libc has been patched for that arch. Or do we no longer
> need that change? I know there was a patch for mips64 to look at /lib
> not /lib64 for ld.so, etc, etc.
Yeah, the issue I'm running into seems related to:
commit 6c936b4b1a2fb1bdf1f3f91482af7e33e71b5c10
Author: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Wed Jul 27 10:19:30 2011 +0100
gcc: Drop part of the 64bithack patch which is no longer used
Since we now handle GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in gcc-configure-common.inc:
's#\(GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER[^ ]*\)\( *"/lib.*\)#\1 SYSTEMLIBS_DIR\2#'
And it not doing what is expected.
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-07-28 15:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-07-28 14:15 lib vs lib64? Kumar Gala
2011-07-28 14:17 ` Phil Blundell
2011-07-28 15:15 ` Tom Rini
2011-07-28 15:45 ` Kumar Gala
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.