multiarch proposal

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 03 May 2008, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 06:40:47PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > It is not a problem per se but it is a lot of work all together.
> >
> > Is not including a trivial patch worth breaking ld just to force
> > people to use gcc to link? Why not go all out and remove the linker
> > scripts alltogether so it won't work without gcc at all? :)
> >
> > I would rather have people use gcc to link because it is the right
> > thing to do instead of forcing them because we will break ld with
> > multiarch.
>
> Linking with ld has been broken for all those years on plenty of
> platforms.  Just not on x86 Linux.

and will continue to be broken.  i think the mutlilib example i pointed out 
recently in a different thread is a good one ... an ld that supports a wide 
range of bfd's cannot automatically select the right bfd based on the input 
objects.  people who execute ld have to explicitly specify the emulation 
with -m or it'll fail right off the bat.  that's worse than adding random 
search paths i'd think ...
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20080503/36edb1b8/attachment.sig>