From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:58:53 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] toolchain-external: ld.so* vs ld.so.* In-Reply-To: <20180307122647.GI8100@australia> References: <20180307122647.GI8100@australia> Message-ID: <20180307135853.37ad2cf2@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 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