On 12/31/21 2:59 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
On 2021-Dec-31, at 14:28, Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2021-Dec-30, at 14:04, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
On 12/30/21 1:09 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
On 2021-Dec-30, at 13:05, Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This asks a question in a different direction that my prior
reports about my builds vs. Cy's reported build.
Background:
/usr/obj/BUILDs/main-amd64-nodbg-clang/usr/main-src/amd64.amd64/tmp/usr/lib/libc++.so:GROUP
( /lib/libc++.so.1 /usr/lib/libcxxrt.so
and:
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 23 Dec 29 13:17:01 2021 /usr/lib/libcxxrt.so
-> ../../lib/libcxxrt.so.1
Why did libc++.so.1 not get a:
/usr/lib/libc++.so.1 -> ../../lib/libc++.so.1
I forgot to remove the .1 on the left hand side:
/usr/lib/libc++.so -> ../../lib/libc++.so.1
Because for libc++.so we don't just symlink to the current version of the
library
(as we do for most other shared libraries) to tell the compiler what to link
against
for -lc++, instead we use a linker script that tells the compiler to link
against
both of those libraries when -lc++ is encountered.
A better identification of what looks odd to me is the
path variations in:
# more /usr/lib/libc++.so
Another not great day on my part: That path alone makes
the mix of /lib/ and /usr/lib/ use involved, given the
reference to /lib/libc++.so.1 . That would still be true
if the other path had been /lib/libcxxrt.so .
/usr/lib/libc++.so is only used by the compiler/linker when linking a binary.
The resulting binary has the associated paths (/lib/libc++.so.1 and
/usr/lib/libcxxrt.so.1) in its DT_NEEDED. So it is fine for the .so to be
in /usr/lib. This is the same with /usr/lib/libc.so vs /lib/libc.so.7.
However, your point about libcxxrt.so.1 is valid. It needs to also be moved
to /lib if libc++.so.1 is moved to /lib. Doing so will also require yet another
depend-clean.sh fixup (well, probably just adjusting the one I added to
check the libcxxrt path instead of libc++ path).
--
John Baldwin
