Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 15:04:00 -0800 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> Cc: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org" <dev-commits-src-main@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: git: 5e6a2d6eb220 - main - Reapply: move libc++ from /usr/lib to /lib [add /usr/lib/libc++.so.1 -> ../../lib/libc++.so.1 ?] Message-ID: <f5d458c2-fa12-8893-47b4-001716a3416b@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <76FC7AFB-DA78-4A44-BC74-4477C9E11413@yahoo.com> References: <45118DB4-F8C4-4F96-9CAA-5DC5DCFFEB7E@yahoo.com> <3140C5F6-495F-441C-AA6B-542F3BC53B62@yahoo.com> <5F8AF0B2-3AF3-4BE4-B5D1-9030F2605FFD@yahoo.com> <EDD53581-B5FA-4D52-9F9A-AAB1DA1974D2@yahoo.com> <5a24eb16-078f-15c5-dcd4-ecef33d15ac7@FreeBSD.org> <03AF30DA-A632-4223-908C-9F5250D82079@yahoo.com> <76FC7AFB-DA78-4A44-BC74-4477C9E11413@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/31/21 2:59 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2021-Dec-31, at 14:28, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2021-Dec-30, at 14:04, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >>> On 12/30/21 1:09 PM, Mark Millard wrote: >>>> On 2021-Dec-30, at 13:05, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> This asks a question in a different direction that my prior >>>>> reports about my builds vs. Cy's reported build. >>>>> >>>>> Background: >>>>> >>>>> /usr/obj/BUILDs/main-amd64-nodbg-clang/usr/main-src/amd64.amd64/tmp/usr/lib/libc++.so:GROUP ( /lib/libc++.so.1 /usr/lib/libcxxrt.so >>>>> and: >>>>> lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 23 Dec 29 13:17:01 2021 /usr/lib/libcxxrt.so -> ../../lib/libcxxrt.so.1 >>>>> >>>>> Why did libc++.so.1 not get a: >>>>> >>>>> /usr/lib/libc++.so.1 -> ../../lib/libc++.so.1 >>>> I forgot to remove the .1 on the left hand side: >>>> /usr/lib/libc++.so -> ../../lib/libc++.so.1 >>> >>> Because for libc++.so we don't just symlink to the current version of the library >>> (as we do for most other shared libraries) to tell the compiler what to link against >>> for -lc++, instead we use a linker script that tells the compiler to link against >>> both of those libraries when -lc++ is encountered. >> >> A better identification of what looks odd to me is the >> path variations in: >> >> # more /usr/lib/libc++.so > > Another not great day on my part: That path alone makes > the mix of /lib/ and /usr/lib/ use involved, given the > reference to /lib/libc++.so.1 . That would still be true > if the other path had been /lib/libcxxrt.so . /usr/lib/libc++.so is only used by the compiler/linker when linking a binary. The resulting binary has the associated paths (/lib/libc++.so.1 and /usr/lib/libcxxrt.so.1) in its DT_NEEDED. So it is fine for the .so to be in /usr/lib. This is the same with /usr/lib/libc.so vs /lib/libc.so.7. However, your point about libcxxrt.so.1 is valid. It needs to also be moved to /lib if libc++.so.1 is moved to /lib. Doing so will also require yet another depend-clean.sh fixup (well, probably just adjusting the one I added to check the libcxxrt path instead of libc++ path). -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f5d458c2-fa12-8893-47b4-001716a3416b>