Re: ELF_DYNAMIC_INTERPRETER changes for FreeBSD

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 11:44:03PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > I think this is the wrong approach anyhow.  Just use an appropriate
> > --dynamic-linker option when you link.  Even if you have a compiler
> > other than gcc, there must be some way to control the linker options.
> 
> "there must be"... please lets talk real-world not ivory tower.  Unless
> we know that every compiler of every language has an option, the linker
> should specify the right ELF_DYNAMIC_INTERPRETER.  Not to mention this
> would be a new requirement for FreeBSD users.
> 
> I'm trying very hard to make it so FreeBSD can use a stock Binutils.
> Please work with me on this.  I have the requirement that the linker use
> the right ELF_DYNAMIC_INTERPRETER w/o manual specification by users.  So
> how to engineer a solution?
> 
> This really sounds like the wrong answer to me.  In other words you want
> the GNU ld to be *broken* on FreeBSD such that people have to use a very
> long and cumberson option to make it work correctly??  I don't think so.
> Would you be taking this same stance if Solaris used some other name for
> the dynamic linker?
>  

Are you implying I have been breaking the GNU ld on Linux from day
one?  As many people have told you that, most of ABIs specify the
pathname for ld.so. I am not even sure if I want to see a new BFD
target, just for a different ld.so pathname. It may cause maintaince
problems. I prefer BFD only implements the processor ABI, not the OS
ABI. If Linux can deal with it, why not FreeBSD.


H.J.