On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:44:22 -0300 Paulo César Pereira de Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com wrote:
Em 11 de abril de 2012 20:22, Michael Hope michael.hope@linaro.org escreveu:
On 12 April 2012 10:38, Steve McIntyre steve.mcintyre@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:09AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
And here's the details as promised.
I've started a wiki page at
https://wiki.linaro.org/OfficeofCTO/HardFloat/LinkerPathCallApr2012
with a strawman agenda for now, and a Doodle poll at
http://www.doodle.com/93bitkqeb7auyxn7
to see when the best time is for the call on Thursday/Friday. Please fill in the times that work for you ASAP and I'll announce the result during Wednesday. Ideally we'd like stakeholders from all the relevant distros and the upstream toolchain developers to be there, able to represent their groups and (importantly) able to make a decision here on what we should do.
Apologies for the short notice, but we need a decision quickly.
And the best time turns out to be Friday at 15:00 UTC (16:00 BST, 11:00 EDT etc.). Of the 10 people who responded in the poll, the only person who can't make that time is Michael in .nz. Sorry, Michael.
All good. My vote is for /lib/ld-arm-linux-gnueabihf.so.3 as it: * is similar to /lib/ld-x86-64.so.2 * keeps the libraries and loader in the same directory * doesn't invent a new /libhf directory * is easier to implement in GLIBC * is architecture and ABI unique * requires less change for distros where the hard float libraries are already in /lib
Sorry for more bikeshedding, but afaik rpm based distros are using the armv7hl identifier, so it could as well be
/lib/ld-linux-armv7hl.so.3
I dont see the need for linux there
/lib/ld-armv7hl.so.3
or just
/lib/ld-armhfp.so.3
64 bit could be /lib64/ld-armhfp.so.3 or /lib64/ld-aarch64.so.3
off topic but i find aarch64 weird and too generic is it arm alpha amd atom.
we shouldnt use any triplet since they are not standard between distros,
Dennis