[PATCH 06/18] RISC-V: Add path of library directories for the 32-bit

[Alistair Francis]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:49 PM Jim Wilson <jimw@sifive.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:38 AM Alistair Francis via Libc-alpha
> <libc-alpha@sourceware.org> wrote:
> > diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/dl-cache.h b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/dl-cache.h
> > index c297dfe84f..60fc172edb 100644
> > --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/dl-cache.h
> > +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/riscv/dl-cache.h
> > @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@
> >     RISC-V, libraries can be found in paths ending in:
> >       - /lib64/lp64d
> >       - /lib64/lp64
> > +     - /lib32/ilp32d
> > +     - /lib32/ilp32
> >       - /lib (only ld.so)
> >     so this will add all of those paths.
> >
>
> FYI This reminds me of something.  I was forwarded a complaint that
> the RISC-V ABI was violating the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS),
> which specifies that libraries are only allowed to be in /lib and
> /lib<qual>.  The complaint was that /lib64/lp64d doesn't follow this
> pattern, and hence is a violation of this standard.  However, the
> standard doesn't clearly state that <qual> can't contain a slash.  The
> person who complained insisted that it was implied.  It wasn't clear
> to me what to do with the complaint.  Changing the ABI now would be
> rather disruptive and undesirable, and I also don't know how important
> the FHS standard is, or whether this interpretation is correct.

Hmm....

Ideally I would prefer to do the same as RV64, it seems simpler. If it
is explicitly against the standard though then I think it makes sense
to fix it for RV32 now though.

It does seem to imply that <qual> shouldn't contain a slash, but it's
not stated (as you mentioned).

As it's not against the spec I'm thinking we leave it as is unless
anyone else objects?

Alistair

>
> http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html
>
> Jim