On Thursday 12 April 2012 02:05:23 Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:22:13AM +1200, Michael Hope wrote: > > All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it: > > The directory should be /libhf/ or /libhfp/ for that for consistency > with all the other architectures.
i think the idea was that no one is looking to do multilib here. so we won't have softfloat in /lib/ and hardfloat in /libhf/. we're just changing the ldso to reflect a change in the ABI. you could also make this argument for EABI and OABI -- the EABI ldso should not be in /lib/. but since we've got OABI and EABI both in /lib/ and people are happy with that, as well as the hardfloat ldso in /lib/, there's no need for a sep /libhf/. > I'm fine with arm and hf (resp. hfp) being mentioned in the name of > the dynamic linker, but IMNSHO having there gnu and eabi strings > is an overkill - why mention gnu there, when all the other > architectures which also have GNU libc dynamic linkers don't? That > part is implicit. And, EABI is implied by so.3, softfp dynamic linker > for EABI is /lib/ld-linux.so.3 while softfp dynamic linker for the old > ABI is /lib/ld-linux.so.2. i have no opinion either way here. uClibc has already opted to name things with "-uClibc-" in them, so we're clear of collisions there. -mike
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.