Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:25:58 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@FreeBSD.org> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>, Jason Evans <jasone@FreeBSD.org> Subject: ELF dynamic loader name [was: sbrk(2) broken] Message-ID: <477EA466.6060204@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <477E72FC.5070304@freebsd.org> References: <477C82F0.5060809@freebsd.org> <863ateemw2.fsf@ds4.des.no> <200801032200.25650.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <alpine.BSF.1.00.0801031305340.39341@goat.gigo.com> <8663yac62d.fsf@ds4.des.no> <477E72FC.5070304@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tim Kientzle wrote:
>> "Sidegrading" is supposed to work now in HEAD; with a little hacking,
>> you can build an amd64 world and kernel on the i386 world, install the
>> kernel, reboot, and install world. AFAIK, the required hacking involves
>> copying /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 to /libexec/ld-elf32.so.1 ...
>
> I wonder when we'll have to standardize /libexec/<arch>/ to support
> multiple architectures for things like ld-elf.so.1. It used to only
> be a concern for those rare people running diskless over multiple
> architectures, but the case of i386 binaries on amd64 is a little
> more common.
>
> On the other hand, if ld-elf.so.1 is fairly unique in this
> concern, it might be simpler to rename it to:
> ld-elf-{i386,amd64,ppc,...}.so.1
Good point, it's silly that i386 binary running on amd64 kernel requires
ld-elf32.so.1, while ld-elf.so.1 when running on i386 kernel. It adds
unneeded complexity for running i386 jail or chroot on amd64 for example.
I wonder if we can do what Tim said - rename dynamic loader to actually
include architecture name. I am pretty sure it would allow to remove
quite few special cases from the kernel elf/emulation code and possibly
from the cross build logic.
-Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?477EA466.6060204>