Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On 2/27/12 11:10 PM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: >> The 64-bit x86 SysV ABI *REQUIRES* /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 to be the >> runtime linker path. (This is a far more fundamental standard than LSB, >> as well.) See the (google-docs-import-from-PDF) version of the ABI >> standard: >> >> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ms_KKFndiCkJ:www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf+linux+abi+64-bit+x86&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShHjrdWF0azVfQCEu-s8nYZAzhXt5X9e2WZeIC7fqrwtyLFFUztVtpzfZo3ucJZB49pJHfDqqZL90ngzTG4BBheeJgy22Dj8RY9P0AjWbbKcXPzrvlKdn1S3W-CRCjpyqevNL6m&sig=AHIEtbS5MYc65tgRT4svuwi7uO7iAzNZyQ >> >> Specifically, section 5.2.1. > > Interestingly, it says there: > ---- > There is one valid program interpreter for programs conforming to the AMD64 > ABI: > > /lib/ld64.so.1 > However, Linux puts this in > > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 > ---- > > To me, that reads that the standard is "/lib/ld64.so.1" but Linux does > something different and puts in "/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2"
I agree that it looks funny. Also, I use an Intel 64 bit system, not AMD. What should it be for me? That said, I think /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 is hard coded into binutils and changing that would have unknown consequences. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
