Quoting Daniel O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from Tue, 28 Oct 2008
10:18:10 +1030):
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 01:31:16 M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Daniel O'Connor wrote:
: On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
can't work
rtld shouldn't attempt to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit programs.
The same problem happens with the Linux run time
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Daniel O'Connor wrote:
: On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
: this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
: can't work
:
:rtld shouldn't attempt to
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 01:31:16 M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Daniel O'Connor wrote:
: On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
: this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit
:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Daniel O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
can't work
rtld shouldn't attempt to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit programs.
The same problem
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:49:19 -0400
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a bug or not in FreeBSD's rtld?
-aps
It is not. In case it was not clear before, I maintain that you _ask_
rtld for wrong behaviour and you get back what you asked for, down to
the letter. 'Tasting'
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:49:19 -0400
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a bug or not in FreeBSD's rtld?
-aps
It is not. In case it was not clear before, I maintain that you _ask_
rtld for wrong
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:10:53 -0400
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:49:19 -0400
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a bug or not in FreeBSD's rtld?
-aps
It is
6.1-RELEASE-amd64 machine. If I add /usr/lib32 to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
it breaks all of my binaries on my 64-bit machine.
what do you expect else?
this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
can't work
___
On 2008-Oct-24 10:43:04 +0200, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6.1-RELEASE-amd64 machine. If I add /usr/lib32 to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
it breaks all of my binaries on my 64-bit machine.
what do you expect else?
Well, the rtld should be smart enough to recognize 32-bit .so's and
skip
On Friday 24 October 2008 23:20:59 Peter Jeremy wrote:
this will make system trying to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit program. it
can't work
rtld shouldn't attempt to bind 32-bit libs to 64-bit programs.
The same problem happens with the Linux run time linker - it merrily tries to
link FreeBSD
Hello:
I have some weird behavior I'm trying to figure out and was wondering
if someone can point me in the right direction. I'm running a FreeBSD
6.1-RELEASE-amd64 machine. If I add /usr/lib32 to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
it breaks all of my binaries on my 64-bit machine.
For example:
[EMAIL
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have some weird behavior I'm trying to figure out and was wondering
if someone can point me in the right direction. I'm running a FreeBSD
6.1-RELEASE-amd64 machine. If I add /usr/lib32 to my LD_LIBRARY_PATH
it breaks all of my binaries on my 64-bit
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you look at the rtld(1) man page, there are a number of environment
variables you can set to debug the loader. I'm not sure how helpful
they are, though.
You can rebuild rtld(1) with debugging enabled:
% cd /usr/src/libexec/rtld-elf
% make
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you look at the rtld(1) man page, there are a number of environment
variables you can set to debug the loader. I'm not sure how helpful
they are, though.
You can
Alright, well I found some weirdness:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/lib:/usr/lib32:/usr/lib64
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# LD_DEBUG=1 ls
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1 is initialized, base address = 0x800506000
RTLD dynamic = 0x80062ad78
RTLD pltgot = 0x0
processing main program's
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:48:47 -0400
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, comments most appreciated. Damn, I was looking for someone to
go a ha, you can't do this because Alright, let me see why rtld
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:48:47 -0400
Alexander Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, comments most appreciated. Damn, I was looking for someone to
go a ha, you can't do this because Alright, let me see why rtld
on 6.1-amd64 is picking up /usr/lib32 stuff for a native 64-bit binary
via
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Alexander Sack wrote:
Alright, well I found some weirdness:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/lib:/usr/lib32:/usr/lib64
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# LD_DEBUG=1 ls
/libexec/ld-elf.so.1 is initialized, base address = 0x800506000
RTLD dynamic = 0x80062ad78
In the last episode (Oct 23), Alexander Sack said:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for native 64bit rtld. If you want a specific
path added for use by 32-bit ld-elf.so.1 only, use
LD_32_LIBRARY_PATH.
Said that, your problem
20 matches
Mail list logo
