Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 14:59:08 -0800 From: Mark Millard via freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> 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: <76FC7AFB-DA78-4A44-BC74-4477C9E11413@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <03AF30DA-A632-4223-908C-9F5250D82079@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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: >=20 >> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> Background: >>>>=20 >>>> = /usr/obj/BUILDs/main-amd64-nodbg-clang/usr/main-src/amd64.amd64/tmp/usr/li= b/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 >>>>=20 >>>> Why did libc++.so.1 not get a: >>>>=20 >>>> /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 >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > A better identification of what looks odd to me is the > path variations in: >=20 > # 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 . I guess I've just not figured out what specific, detailed issue(s) the move to /lib/libc++.so.1 covers vs. not, given the /usr/lib/libc++.so and /usr/lib/libcxxrt.so paths. I'm not using anything with /usr/lib/ being on a different file system than /lib so I'll definitely not observe any problems. And it might be a waste to try to clear my confusions at this point, given how the day is going. > /* $FreeBSD$ */ > GROUP ( /lib/libc++.so.1 /usr/lib/libcxxrt.so ) >=20 > So /usr/lib/ still has to be available (so, possibly, mounted) > for C++ because of the /usr/lib/libcxxrt.so reference? If so, > why the move of libc++.so.1 to /lib/ ? >=20 >> I have finally reproduced Cy's build error locally and am testing my = fix. If it >> works I'll commit it. >>=20 >=20 =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?76FC7AFB-DA78-4A44-BC74-4477C9E11413>