From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20162 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2003 00:14:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20031 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 00:14:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2003 00:14:22 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5I0EMH18082 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:14:22 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5I0EKS13865; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:14:20 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5I0EKK32372; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:14:20 -0700 Message-ID: <3EEFAEDB.4090509@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:14:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , Kris Warkentin , "Gdb@Sources.Redhat.Com" Subject: Re: Why does solib_open do what it does? References: <09c201c33502$da555ce0$0202040a@catdog> <20030617191129.GA15099@nevyn.them.org> <09e801c33504$bd88b420$0202040a@catdog> <1030617200144.ZM31327@localhost.localdomain> <0ab001c3350d$359af2e0$0202040a@catdog> <1030617202406.ZM31423@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00364.txt.bz2 Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Jun 17, 4:15pm, Kris Warkentin wrote: > > >>>>That's what I was thinking too. A customer reported that when they >>> >>don't >> >>>>set solib-search-path, all of a sudden gdb isn't finding solibs that >>> >>used to >> >>>>be found in LD_LIBRARY_PATH. >>> >>>It sounds to me like the solibs in question were actually being found via >>>solib-search-path, not LD_LIBRARY_PATH. >>> >>>I think the problem with using LD_LIBRARY_PATH is that the paths >>>won't be correct without some sort of adjustment. I.e, the paths >>>provided by LD_LIBRARY_PATH are target filesystem paths, not host >>>paths. >> >>Well, I've always considered searching LD_LIBRARY_PATH at all to be wrong >>since the only util that should be concerned with that is the runtime >>loader. Ideally, ld should be filling in the path where it found the lib >>which can then be used with solib-absolute-prefix or some such. > > > Right. > > I think Michael added the searches on $PATH and $LD_LIBRARY_PATH for > native ports, but it's not clear to me that these searches are actually > needed. > > Michael, any comments? I don't remember. ;-( I'll just remark that ld puts full paths in for some libs, and not for others. That's why there are two variables, SOLIB-SEARCH-PATH and SOLIB-ABSOLUTE-PREFIX. One is the prefix that goes before everything (even rooted filespecs), and the other is the additional prefix that goes before an un-rooted filespec.