[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#527537: Broken library search paths



The missing dir separator has been added, the fix is in our svn. Now a
few comments about your bug report:

2009/5/8, Goswin Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>:
> # Broken path. Missing a '/'?

Yes, fixed.

> * Duplicate entry after canonicalize

Not an issue.

> ! Path for the wrong target

Not an issue as long as the 32-bit paths are before the other paths.

> "/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu" is missing.
> "/lib/i486-linux-gnu" is missing.

No they're not. We have never wanted them.

> "/lib64", "/usr/lib64" could also
> be considered missing, they would be needed when running Debian gcc on
> SuSe/RH for example.

I'm all for binary compatibility (where reasonable) across distros,
But using a non-native (ie. from an other distro) toolchain as the
main toolchain is a very bad idea.

> And for a horrendiously broken example:
>
> ------[ gcc-4.4 -uclibc --print-search-dirs ]-------------------------
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.0/
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.0/
> /usr/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.0/
> /usr/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.0/
> /usr/lib/
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.0/
> /lib/
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.0/
> /usr/lib/
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnux86_64-linux-gnu/4.4.0/
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu../lib/
> /usr/x86_64-linux-gnu/lib/
> /usr/lib/
> /lib/
> /usr/lib/
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu
>
> This is all wrong. I think the -uclibc option should be completly
> disabled in the default specs file. It even links against the wrong C
> library:
>
> % gcc-4.4 -uclibc -o foo foo.c
> % ldd foo
>         libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00002b2710aaa000)
>         /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00002b271088c000)
>
> Seems 100% broken.

Nothing related to the multiarch support. We don't support uclibc. If
you want to send a feature request, please send a separated bug
report, and make a patch.

> PS: I haven't checked the include paths. I hope you didn't break them
> with the new multiarch patch.

They are fine. If you think they're not, please send a patch.



Reply to: