Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2008-01-23 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:29:08PM CET: I give up on trying to find fancy ways to set the paths, ok to apply this to branch-1-5 (and similar for HEAD)? I suppose, yes, but I guess some mention in the documentation would not be bad.

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2008-01-23 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:29:08PM CET: I give up on trying to find fancy ways to set the paths, ok to apply this to branch-1-5 (and similar for HEAD)? I suppose, yes, but I guess some mention in the documentation would not be bad.

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2008-01-21 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:29:08PM CET: I give up on trying to find fancy ways to set the paths, ok to apply this to branch-1-5 (and similar for HEAD)? I suppose, yes, but I guess some mention in the documentation would not be bad. Thank you, Ralf

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2008-01-21 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:02:59AM CEST: Proposed patches for branch-1-5 and HEAD. Okay to apply? Not quite, I'm afraid. First, please put $CPPFLAGS before $LDFLAGS, for consistency. We should consider just making this whole

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2008-01-21 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:29:08PM CET: I give up on trying to find fancy ways to set the paths, ok to apply this to branch-1-5 (and similar for HEAD)? I suppose, yes, but I guess some mention in the documentation would not be bad. Thank you, Ralf

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-09-05 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Proposed patches for branch-1-5 and HEAD. Okay to apply? Peter 2007-09-05 Peter O'Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] * libtool.m4 (AC_LIBTOOL_SYS_DYNAMIC_LINKER) [linux]: Try to set the dynamic linker search path properly for multilib case. Index: libtool.m4

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-09-05 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:02:59AM CEST: Proposed patches for branch-1-5 and HEAD. Okay to apply? Not quite, I'm afraid. First, please put $CPPFLAGS before $LDFLAGS, for consistency. Then, this code is used in each tag -- Fortran compilers don't like files

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-09-05 Thread Peter O'Gorman
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 00:25 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hi Ralf, thank you for testing! Further, the indiscriminate use of ldd, or absolute file names in the test of course prevents decent cross-compile results. (Not that this is much of a regression, the problem existed before.)

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-09-05 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Proposed patches for branch-1-5 and HEAD. Okay to apply? Peter 2007-09-05 Peter O'Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] * libtool.m4 (AC_LIBTOOL_SYS_DYNAMIC_LINKER) [linux]: Try to set the dynamic linker search path properly for multilib case. Index: libtool.m4

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-09-05 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:02:59AM CEST: Proposed patches for branch-1-5 and HEAD. Okay to apply? Not quite, I'm afraid. First, please put $CPPFLAGS before $LDFLAGS, for consistency. Then, this code is used in each tag -- Fortran compilers don't like files

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-09-05 Thread Peter O'Gorman
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 00:25 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hi Ralf, thank you for testing! Further, the indiscriminate use of ldd, or absolute file names in the test of course prevents decent cross-compile results. (Not that this is much of a regression, the problem existed before.)

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-08-22 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Peter O'Gorman wrote: libsuff=`ldd conftest 2/dev/null | awk '/libc\.so/ {n=split([$]3,x,/); for (i=0; i n; i++) { if (x[[i]] == lib64) {print 64}}}'` this test would still be subject to the environment of ldd ... in otherwords, it is still possible to have ldd

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-08-22 Thread Peter O'Gorman
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:40 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Peter O'Gorman wrote: libsuff=`ldd conftest 2/dev/null | awk '/libc\.so/ {n=split([$]3,x,/); for (i=0; i n; i++) { if (x[[i]] == lib64) {print 64}}}'` this test would still be subject to the

Re: multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-08-22 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Peter O'Gorman wrote: On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:40 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 22 August 2007, Peter O'Gorman wrote: libsuff=`ldd conftest 2/dev/null | awk '/libc\.so/ {n=split([$]3,x,/); for (i=0; i n; i++) { if (x[[i]] == lib64) {print

multilib dirs and ld.so

2007-08-21 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Hi, Albert pointed out to me yesterday that while, with 1.5.24 we now add the correct directories to sys_lib_search_path_spec, they do not get added to sys_lib_dlsearch_path_spec, resulting in libtool putting, for example, /usr/lib64 in RPATH. Red Hat have a patch for this, but it is specific to