On 20/07/17 06:11, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
On 07/20 04:51, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 19/07/17 19:57, tu...@posteo.de wrote:
Hi,
My Buspirate v36a needs a newer firmware.
Unfortunately the flasher software is only
available in 32bit and I run a 64bit modern
Gentoo.
Is this the tool?
https://github.com/DangerousPrototypes/Bus_Pirate/blob/master/package/BPv3-firmware/pirate-loader_lnx
That is a dynamically linked executable. I just ran it on my 64-bit Gentoo:
[...]
Now it this case changes from "weird" to "mysterious":
I downloaded that file. Here it has the checksum (md5)
97122ea9062bbabcd04b2ffdee7b1bb8 pirate-loader_lnx
Same md5sum here. So we have the same binary.
"file pirate-loader_lnx"says:
pirate-loader_lnx: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),
dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld-linux.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, with
debug_info, not stripped
Same here.
but "ldd" states:
ldd ./pirate-loader_lnx
not a dynamic executable
That's where I get a different result. Here, I get:
$ ldd pirate-loader_lnx
linux-gate.so.1 (0xf776a000)
libc.so.6 => /lib32/libc.so.6 (0xf7570000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xf776b000)
(Btw, I assume you did "chmod +x pirate-loader_lnx" on it.)
How can "dynamically linked" and "not a dynamic executable" can be
true simultanously?
That is weird. Can it be that you're not using a multilib configuration?
What is the output of:
$ eix -e glibc
Does it list the "multilib" USE flag as enabled? Does /lib32/libc.so.6
exist?
