handling of empty LD_RUN_PATH ?

Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org
Mon Oct 23 23:39:00 GMT 2006


On Monday 23 October 2006 09:37, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > does it make sense at all to update ld/emultempl/elf32.em to verify that
> > LD_RUN_PATH is a non-empty string ?  cant seem to find any documentation
> > on the subject other than "... the contents of the environment variable
> > LD_RUN_PATH will be used if it is defined."
>
>  Hmm, shouldn't empty LD_RUN_PATH be treated the same as one containing
> just ":"?

that is pretty much how it's handled currently ... except that in the case 
of ":", you force $PWD to be searched twice ...

but that is the question i posed, do we ignore an empty LD_RUN_PATH (like 
Debian) or do we tweak the documentation to explicitly say it is allowed ?
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20061023/04f6c9d1/attachment.sig>


More information about the Binutils mailing list