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

Re: Proposed patch for binutils x32 support



On Friday, June 08, 2012 03:50:31 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08.06.2012 05:36, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> > I've been spending some time this week bootstrapping an x32 chroot on my
> > machine.  Right now I have the basics compiled and installed (and packed
> > up into dummy .deb files without any dependencies or anything).  So now
> > I'm going through and trying to compile the actual Debian packages.
> > 
> > Here's the patch I applied to binutils to get it to support x32 multiarch
> > directories.  I tested that it does allow me to link against libraries in
> > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnux32 (libapt-pkg.so to be exact), which I
> > couldn't before.
> > 
> > So I thought I'd post the patch for comments first.  Anything glaringly
> > wrong with it, or missing from it?  If it looks OK, I'll go ahead and
> > file a wishlist bug against binutils to get it applied.
> 
> do you need that for wheezy? if not, I would like to go ahead and base this
> on binutils trunk, which should go into experimental.

No, this can definitely wait until after wheezy.

> > (As for the other major toolchain components: glibc/eglibc will have to
> > wait for an upgrade for any x32 updates to be incorporated, as x32
> > support is only available starting in 2.15.  And for gcc-4.7, I'd need
> > to generate a patch to incorporate HJ's branch implementing the
> > --with-abi=mx32 option.)
> 
> I think the major will be the gcc packaging. maybe the mips triarch support
> can be reused (libn32XXX), but at a first glance the naming of the macros
> is tightly coupled with the package names itself.

Right now I'm working on updating eglibc packaging to either glibc 2.15 
hjl/x32/release/2.15 or glibc 2.16 master.  Probably the latter would be 
easier, and more consistent with your suggestion for binutils support.

I'm not sure whether we'll want to build libc6-x32 on i386/amd64 and libc6-
i386/amd64 on x32, or whether we're moving to drop those packages eventually 
in favor of multiarch.  On the other hand, IIRC it's currently not allowed for 
gcc to Build-Depend on libc6-dev:i386 [x32 amd64], etc., or corresponding 
dependencies for gcc-*-multilib, right?  So I'm not sure how we'd handle those 
dependencies in full multiarch.
-- 
Daniel Schepler


Reply to: