On Sat, 14 Jan 2017, Karsten Merker wrote: > So the actual ld.so binary should be called something like > "ld-linux-rv.so.1" instead of just "ld.so.1". With everything > else staying the same, that would give us a dynamic linker path > along the lines of "/lib64/lp64f/ld-linux-rv.so.1" for an RV64G > system.
For reference: a glibc port should include a proposed update to <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/ABIList> listing all the supported ABI variants and corresponding dynamic linker paths. (It should also include an update to glibc's build-many-glibcs.py to build at least one glibc configuration for each ABI variant.) > Changing the linker path is of course an incompatible change, but > RISC-V gcc support as submitted upstream now already incoporates > a number of incompatible changes to the previous development > versions (including a different dynamic linker path than older > riscv-gcc versions), so moving from the previous development And new glibc ports are expected to use the symbol version for the glibc release that actually gets the port (I'm supposing you might be aiming for 2.26, although strictly the glibc release freeze needn't affect new ports that don't affect existing ports), not any older symbol version that might have been used in development. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
