From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] toolchain-external: ld.so* vs ld.so.*
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:58:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180307135853.37ad2cf2@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180307122647.GI8100@australia>
Hello,
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:26:47 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> I have a question on following commit:
You like the difficult questions, pointing out a tiny detail (just a
dot!) in an old patch :-)
> The question is: did you intentionally remove the . before the final asterisk?
> I.e. why is it not:
>
> TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_LIBS += ld*.so.*
>
> as was the case before, even for the glibc+eabihf case?
> I could not find a reference to why that specific change was made.
>
> Background is that I now notice (after upgrading to 2018.02 coming from
> 2017.02.x) that an extra file is copied on my target system: the system used to
> have just '/lib/ld.so.1' which is also what is encoded in the ELF files as
> dynamic loader, but now there is also '/lib/ld-2.20.so' which is not actually
> used and is non-stripped (due to an exception in target-finalize).
> This adds about 150K on the root filesystem, which is quite a lot for an unused
> file.
>
> So I wonder what would be wrong with following patch:
>
> diff --git a/toolchain/toolchain-external/pkg-toolchain-external.mk b/toolchain/toolchain-external/pkg-toolchain-external.mk
> --- a/toolchain/toolchain-external/pkg-toolchain-external.mk
> +++ b/toolchain/toolchain-external/pkg-toolchain-external.mk
> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ endif
> # Definitions of the list of libraries that should be copied to the target.
> #
>
> -TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_LIBS += ld*.so* libgcc_s.so.* libatomic.so.*
> +TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_LIBS += ld*.so.* libgcc_s.so.* libatomic.so.*
>
> ifeq ($(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_GLIBC)$(BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_UCLIBC),y)
> TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_LIBS += libc.so.* libcrypt.so.* libdl.so.* libm.so.* libnsl.so.* libresolv.so.* librt.so.* libutil.so.*
I looked at the commit and its commit message, and I can't remember why
ld*.so.* was changed to ld*.so*, so I'd say that your patch is probably
correct.
Is there a way to improve our runtime tests to catch problems like
this ?
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-07 12:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-07 12:26 [Buildroot] toolchain-external: ld.so* vs ld.so.* Thomas De Schampheleire
2018-03-07 12:58 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2018-03-13 10:11 ` Thomas De Schampheleire
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180307135853.37ad2cf2@windsurf \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox