Hi Mao Han,
El jue., 2 ene. 2020 a las 5:15, Mao Han (<han_mao@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
>
> RISC-V multilib toolchain(github.com/riscv/riscv-gnu-toolchain.git) put
> multi ld.so with different ABI under sysroot/lib:
> sysroot/lib/ld-linux-riscv32-ilp32d.so.1
> sysroot/lib/ld-linux-riscv32-ilp32.so.1
> sysroot/lib/ld-linux-riscv64-lp64d.so.1
> sysroot/lib/ld-linux-riscv64-lp64.so.1
> Current buildroot script can't handle multi ld.so and report:
> >>> toolchain-external-custom Copying external toolchain sysroot to staging...
> /bin/bash: line 0: [: too many arguments
> This patch try to get the exact name for ld.so and avoid multi ld.so check in
> the script.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Xianmiao <xianmiao_qu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Hongdeng <hongdeng_chen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Guo Ren<ren_guo@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Mao Han <han_mao@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mark Corbin <mark.corbin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> toolchain/helpers.mk | 10 ++++++++--
> toolchain/toolchain-external/pkg-toolchain-external.mk | 3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/toolchain/helpers.mk b/toolchain/helpers.mk
> index 03355f5..cc581fc 100644
> --- a/toolchain/helpers.mk
> +++ b/toolchain/helpers.mk
> @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ copy_toolchain_sysroot = \
> ARCH_SUBDIR="$(strip $3)"; \
> ARCH_LIB_DIR="$(strip $4)" ; \
> SUPPORT_LIB_DIR="$(strip $5)" ; \
> + SPECIFIC_LD_NAME="$(strip $6)" ; \
> for i in etc $${ARCH_LIB_DIR} sbin usr usr/$${ARCH_LIB_DIR}; do \
> if [ ! -d $${ARCH_SYSROOT_DIR}/$$i ] ; then \
> continue ; \
> @@ -136,8 +137,13 @@ copy_toolchain_sysroot = \
> done ; \
> fi ; \
> if [ ! -e $(STAGING_DIR)/lib/ld*.so.* ]; then \
> - if [ -e $${ARCH_SYSROOT_DIR}/lib/ld*.so.* ]; then \
> - cp -a $${ARCH_SYSROOT_DIR}/lib/ld*.so.* $(STAGING_DIR)/lib/ ; \
> + if [ "$${SPECIFIC_LD_NAME}" != "" ]; then \
> + LD_NAME=$${SPECIFIC_LD_NAME}; \
> + else \
> + LD_NAME="ld*.so.*"; \
> + fi; \
In addition to the comments posted previously by Yann E. Morin, I
wonder if there can actually be a case where SPECIFIC_LD_NAME is
empty. What I mean is: do we still need the wildcard-based approach if
we are using a more correct approach of actually checking the
interpreter via readelf?
Removing the wildcards would make the code a bit more clear. In this
case, the name 'SPECIFIC_LD_NAME' could perhaps be renamed to just
'LD_SO_FILENAME' or something.
Best regards,
Thomas
