Re: [OE-core] x86_64: ldd does not work (not a dynamic executable)
On Mon, 2018-08-20 at 12:06 +0200, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote: > Hi > > I think that I found a bug with ldd on sumo. Whenever I try to use it > on the target with an dynamic binary, it returns: > > root@qt5122:~# ldd ./qtec_webcam > not a dynamic executable > > > The reason seems to be that it cannot find the dynamic linker: > > It is searching for: > RTLDLIST="/lib/ld-linux.so.2 /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 > /libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.2" > > whith ldd being at: > /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 We allow base_libdir to be configured and default to /lib even on x64_64. ldd should really be honouring base_libdir so that sounds like a bit but it would be ours as upstream will just want to conform to the architecture standard which is lib64. Cheers, Richard -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] x86_64: ldd does not work (not a dynamic executable)
This seems a bug, but we need to ensure it works with multilib On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:06 AM Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote: > > Hi > > I think that I found a bug with ldd on sumo. Whenever I try to use it > on the target with an dynamic binary, it returns: > > root@qt5122:~# ldd ./qtec_webcam > not a dynamic executable > > > The reason seems to be that it cannot find the dynamic linker: > > It is searching for: > RTLDLIST="/lib/ld-linux.so.2 /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 > /libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.2" > > whith ldd being at: > /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 > > This can be patched on glibc with: > > git diff ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed > diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed > b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed > index 44d76e8aa1..611efd56b0 100644 > --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed > +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed > @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ > /LD_TRACE_LOADED_OBJECTS=1/a\ > add_env="$add_env LD_LIBRARY_VERSION=\\$verify_out" > -s_^\(RTLDLIST=\)\(.*lib\)\(\|64\|x32\)\(/[^/]*\)\(-x86-64\|-x32\)\(\.so\.[0-9.]*\)[ >]*$_\1"\2\4\6 \264\4-x86-64\6 \2x32\4-x32\6"_ > +s_^\(RTLDLIST=\)\(.*lib\)\(\|64\|x32\)\(/[^/]*\)\(-x86-64\|-x32\)\(\.so\.[0-9.]*\)[ >]*$_\1"\2\4\6 \264\4-x86-64\6 \2x32\4-x32\6 \2\3\4\5\6"_ > > I can very easily make a patch for this and send it, but it is too > strange, that I have been the first person to stumble with this thing > :), and I do not know if this is a bug OE-specific or shall I also > ping upstream. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks! > > > -- > Ricardo Ribalda > -- > ___ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
[OE-core] x86_64: ldd does not work (not a dynamic executable)
Hi I think that I found a bug with ldd on sumo. Whenever I try to use it on the target with an dynamic binary, it returns: root@qt5122:~# ldd ./qtec_webcam not a dynamic executable The reason seems to be that it cannot find the dynamic linker: It is searching for: RTLDLIST="/lib/ld-linux.so.2 /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 /libx32/ld-linux-x32.so.2" whith ldd being at: /lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 This can be patched on glibc with: git diff ./sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed index 44d76e8aa1..611efd56b0 100644 --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/ldd-rewrite.sed @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ /LD_TRACE_LOADED_OBJECTS=1/a\ add_env="$add_env LD_LIBRARY_VERSION=\\$verify_out" -s_^\(RTLDLIST=\)\(.*lib\)\(\|64\|x32\)\(/[^/]*\)\(-x86-64\|-x32\)\(\.so\.[0-9.]*\)[ ]*$_\1"\2\4\6 \264\4-x86-64\6 \2x32\4-x32\6"_ +s_^\(RTLDLIST=\)\(.*lib\)\(\|64\|x32\)\(/[^/]*\)\(-x86-64\|-x32\)\(\.so\.[0-9.]*\)[ ]*$_\1"\2\4\6 \264\4-x86-64\6 \2x32\4-x32\6 \2\3\4\5\6"_ I can very easily make a patch for this and send it, but it is too strange, that I have been the first person to stumble with this thing :), and I do not know if this is a bug OE-specific or shall I also ping upstream. Any ideas? Thanks! -- Ricardo Ribalda -- ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
