On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 09:41:28PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Alan Modra wrote: > > > For multiarch, powerpc64le-linux now will use powerpc64le-linux-gnu. > > Given a typical big-endian native toolchain with os dirs /lib and > > /lib64, we'll use /lible and /lib64le if supporting little-endian as > > well. If you happen to use /lib and /lib32, then the little-endian > > variants are /lible and /lib32le. For completeness I also support > > building big-endian multilibs on a little-endian host. > > Given those directory names, what are the defined dynamic linker paths for > 32-bit and 64-bit little-endian (which can't depend on which of the > various directory arrangements may be in use)?
We haven't defined the little-endian ld.so variants yet. > Does the Power Architecture support, in principle, a single system running > both big-endian and little-endian processes at the same time It does. >, or is it a > matter of hardware configuration or boot-time setup? Unless both can run > at once, it doesn't seem particularly useful to define separate > directories for big and little endian since a particular system would be > just one or the other. We (IBM) don't intend to support running both big and little-endian processes on the same system in the near future. Perhaps I'm jumping the gun in defining the multi-os dirs like /lible and /lib64le. I did that to make it easier for people ideologically opposed to multiarch to set up a native powerpc64 compiler that supports both big and little-endian compilation. I know the multi-os dirs aren't strictly needed to do that.. Should I not be defining them yet? -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
