Re: Multiarch in Debian unstable
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:30:51AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2011-06-27 15:59:27 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > If by "fat binaries" you mean executables,
> No, I meant libraries (the term "fat binary" is used by the GMP library,
> but is here restricted to x86 subarchs).
> > If by "fat binaries" you mean shared libraries, they could either go in
> > /usr/lib, or go in /usr/lib/TUPLE for every appropriate tuple (using hard
> > links or something).
> See my other message concerning a possible problem with the search
> directory order.
> > But there's no real advantage in doing that, you could
> > just as easily install several "thin" libraries.
> Perhaps multiarch partly makes fat libraries more or less obsolete
> (unless some data could be shared, such as debugging symbols).
That's impossible. Debugging symbols have data on which parts of which
code segments point to which source lines, and by definition, that kind
of data would be different for every architecture.
The random data that a library might store in .text segments (string
initializers and such) could be shared depending on the implementation
of the linker producing fat binaries, but that kind of data is going to
be fairly small compared to the number of code segments in the library
The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by
the following formula:
pi zz a