Re: Dynamic linker name

[Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>]

On 15/06/16 10:16, Lei Zhang wrote:
> 2016-06-15 15:10 GMT+08:00 Felix Janda <felix.janda@posteo.de>:
>> Lei Zhang wrote:
>>> 2016-06-14 23:56 GMT+08:00 Lei Zhang <zhanglei.april@gmail.com>:
>>>> 2016-06-14 23:11 GMT+08:00 Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Sorry, but my understanding is that r272662 is correct for x86, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can definitely add support for more arches with musl if someone sends a
>>>>> patch to the list.
>>>>
>>>> If no one intends to do this, I can prepare further patches and
>>>> relevant test cases for other archs.
>>>
>>> Now I'm determining the $ARCH field in musl's dynamic linker name for
>>> non-x86 archs. After reading these two patches (thanks to their
>>> authors):
>>>
>>> http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/aports/plain/main/clang/clang-0004-Add-musl-targets-and-dynamic-linker.patch
>>> https://github.com/kraj/meta-clang/blob/master/recipes-devtools/clang/clang/0001-clang-driver-Add-musl-ldso-support.patch
>>
>> You should really take a look at musl's configure script.
> 
> I should've done that. Sorry for my laziness...
> 
>> For mips* and powerpc* there are also "-sf" variants. There are also
>> "mipsr6*" and "mipsn32*" which might or might not be supported by llvm.
> 
> From LLVM's code, it seems these variants aren't supported.
> 
>>> BTW, I leaved out x32 on purpose, since musl's support for it is
>>> experimental (right?), and it requires yet another environment type
>>> "muslx32" in LLVM.
>>
>> x32 support has been in musl for many releases, whereas mips64 has
>> not landed in a released version of musl, yet...
> 
> So now I have this list:
> 
> i386
> x86_64
> powerpc
> powerpc64
> mips
> mipsel
> mips64
> mips64el
> 
> which should just work out the box with my previous patch. I'll take
> care of x32 and ARM (subarchs and ABIs) with further patches.

Powerpc can be little endian as well but it can wait the arm patch as well.

lu