From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 5 03:51:15 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA17D16A417; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 03:51:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8326113C4D3; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 03:51:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: (from root@localhost) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id m053p7CU000553; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:51:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.0.0.209] (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com with SMTP; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:51:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <477EFEAB.8090807@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:51:07 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060422 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Wemm References: <477C82F0.5060809@freebsd.org> <863ateemw2.fsf@ds4.des.no> <200801032200.25650.peter.schuller@infidyne.com> <8663yac62d.fsf@ds4.des.no> <477E72FC.5070304@freebsd.org> <477EA466.6060204@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jason Evans , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8?=, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?rgrav?= , Peter Schuller Subject: Re: ELF dynamic loader name [was: sbrk(2) broken] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:51:15 -0000 Peter Wemm wrote: > > 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 > > While this doesn't count as an explicit vote against the rename, we can > solve the chroot problem easily. Details? Does your approach also solve the problem of sharing /usr across different architectures (either in a diskless NFS environment or a dual-boot scenario with a shared /usr partition)? > However, renaming ld-elf.so.1 is a bad idea in general. ... things like gdb > "know" how to handle ld-elf.so.1. Getting those upstream folks to add > additional strcmp()'s for ld-elf-i386.so.1, ld-elf-amd64.so.1 etc will > be hard enough, and it will add another hurdle ... I'm not sure that I see the problem. What am I missing? 1) gdb is built to debug binaries for a particular architecture. (gdb/ARM can't debug gdb/i386 binaries) 2) gdb therefore only needs to check for "ld-elf-"`uname -m`".so.1", which is easy to handle when gdb itself is built. I can see some subtleties for cross-builds, but nothing outrageous. It also seems that your argument applies just as well to ld-elf.so.1 and ld-elf32.so.1. Either way, there's more than one ld-elf.so.1, and therefore more than one name to keep track of. I'm not championing the rename by any means, just trying to better understand the issues. The fact that amd64 can run i386 binaries but not vice-versa has a lot of subtle implications. Also, this is the first time that FreeBSD has really had large user bases on two fundamentally different architectures, so it's the first time we've really had to confront some of these support issues (such as the shared /usr scenario). Tim Kientzle