Re: musl-cross-make / litecross improvements

[Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>]

* Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> [2016-05-03 23:53:44 -0400]:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 11:57:05PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > * Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> [2016-05-03 22:16:22 +0200]:
> > > * Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> [2016-05-03 14:02:30 -0400]:
> > > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 01:39:43PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > > > > i think the usr/ and lib64/ symlinks are useful
> > > > > (so it can be used as rootfs without fiddling
> > > > > with etc/ld-musl*.path).
> > > > 
> > > > Yes. Is there a good way to override that in gcc or should we just
> > > > make the symlinks?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > output/lib64 can be eliminated by
> > > COMMON_CONFIG += --libdir=/lib
> > > 
> > > output/x86_64-linux-musl/lib64 install path is trickier:
> > > it is controlled by the $toolexeclibdir make variable.
> > > which is set according to $CC -print-multi-os-directory
> > > which is controlled by multilib and multilib_defaults from
> > > $CC -dumpspecs which comes from multilib.h generated by
> > > genmultilib based on parameters from config/i386/t-linux64
> > > 
> > 
> > it was not clear if the t-linux64 thing could be overridden, but
> > 
> > GCC_CONFIG += --with-multilib-list=
> > 
> > fixes it (the lib dir is lib/ then).
> 
> Hmm, on x86_64 Alpine, gcc -print-multi-os-directory shows ../lib but
> with -m32 it shows ../lib32. Does that mean there's some way to make
> it behave sanely? Or are they just patching it?

http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/aports/plain/main/gcc/gcc-pure64.patch