On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 07:56:01PM +0100, David Woodhouse said:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 23:04 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > That looks an awful lot like RedHat's half baked implementation of biarch
> > support. It has bitten an awful lot of people, particularly because the
> > toolchain shipped with RedHat isn't particularly good about supporting
> > the directory layout they ship, leading builds to do silly things like
> > find the headers while building a 64bit app and then fail at link time
> > because they found the 32 bit .so first.
>
> Not a failure mode I recognise. Do you have a bug number?
No, at the time I put it down to the cantankerous nature of trying to
build a newer version of openldap on a relatively old RHEL 5 machine.
> The toolchain will skip incompatible libraries if you erroneously put
> them into the link path...
>
> [dwmw2@westmere ~]$ gcc timing_evp_aes.c -lssl -lrt
> [dwmw2@westmere ~]$ gcc timing_evp_aes.c -lssl -lrt -L /usr/lib
> /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/lib/librt.so when searching for -lrt
> /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/lib/libc.so when searching for -lc
> [dwmw2@westmere ~]$ echo $?
> 0
>
> I think Marc's problem was that he put a 64-bit library into /usr/lib,
> which is where the 32-bit libraries live... and which isn't in the rpath
> for a 64-bit binary.
That could quite possibly have been my experience, although I'm fairly
sure I put them in some non-obvious place under /usr/local. If I can
dig up my notes, I'll open a proper bug report.
I doubt this is the best place for redhat discussions however :) I'd be
happy to continue off list, if you feel it's useful.
Cheers,
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Gran | Eat as much as you like -- just don't |
| steve@??? | swallow it. -- Harry Secombe's diet |
| http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
