[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted)
From: |
grischka |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted) |
Date: |
Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:36:47 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) |
Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Why is it necessary to look in two directories at runtime for
elf_interp and for the crt objects?
Actually I realized only today how big mistake it was for the elf interpreter
(it's part of the ABI). This will be fixed in Debian today or tomorrow. As to
crt objects, I assume they are not part of the ABI since they are not
referenced in http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf. Furthermore, they
are on /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ on my system, with symlink from /usr/lib to
them. I don't know if the symlink will be kept, so I added the code to search
them in multiarch directories. I thought crt objects follow the same pattern
as libraries and include directory. If I made a huge mistake here again,
please tell me.
As I wrote previously I don't know anything about multiarch.
However as long as the issues are not clear, I think we should
not do anything so specialized in TCC which later may turn out
to be wrong or unnecessary.
What about for 0.9.26 to let people just specify all needed
paths directly like so
--tcc_sysincludepaths
--tcc_libpaths
--tcc_crtprefix
--tcc_elfinterp
Would that work for your debian package?
Such it would be simpler and more flexible, and usuable also
for cross-compilers and other non-standard configuration.
What do you think?
--- grischka
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] const_wanted, Thomas Preud'homme, 2011/08/01
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] const_wanted, Thomas Preud'homme, 2011/08/01
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] const_wanted, grischka, 2011/08/01
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] const_wanted, Thomas Preud'homme, 2011/08/01
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] const_wanted, grischka, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] const_wanted, Thomas Preud'homme, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted),
grischka <=
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), Thomas Preud'homme, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), grischka, 2011/08/03
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), Thomas Preud'homme, 2011/08/06
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), grischka, 2011/08/06
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), Thomas Preud'homme, 2011/08/06
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), grischka, 2011/08/07
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), Thomas Preud'homme, 2011/08/08
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), grischka, 2011/08/08
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), Thomas Preud'homme, 2011/08/12
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] configury (was const_wanted), grischka, 2011/08/12