[OpenAFS-devel] pam_afs.so in 64 bit version for sparcv9?

[Charles Clancy]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Derrick J Brashear wrote:

> > > > > Second, I tried adding '-xarch=v9' to the XCFLAGS line of
> > > > > src/config/Makefile.sun4x_58, to compile EVERYTHING as 64-bit.  That
> > > > > didn't work either:
> > > >
> > > > Right, you only want to do that for libraries, not for binaries.
> > >
> > > Further, it may be possible to use just libafsauth and libafsrpc to link
> > > the pam module, and if so compiling v9 versions of just these libraries
> > > should be easy to add to the build procedure.
> >
> > Success.  Anyone interested, check out:
> > /afs/cs.rose-hulman.edu/openafs/source/openafs-1.1.1/sun4x_58/dest/lib/pam_afs.*
>
> Since it works, now thought is required. Should v9 libraries go in
> (dest)/lib/sparcv9? It seems logical given how Sun handles them.

It looks like the OS thinks libraries are in (dest)/lib/64:

$ ldd pam_afs.so.1
        libc.so.1 =>     /usr/lib/64/libc.so.1
        libpam.so.1 =>   /usr/lib/64/libpam.so.1
        libsocket.so.1 =>        /usr/lib/64/libsocket.so.1
        libnsl.so.1 =>   /usr/lib/64/libnsl.so.1
        libm.so.1 =>     /usr/lib/64/libm.so.1
        libresolv.so.2 =>        /usr/lib/64/libresolv.so.2
        libdl.so.1 =>    /usr/lib/64/libdl.so.1
        libmp.so.2 =>    /usr/lib/64/libmp.so.2
        /usr/platform/SUNW,Ultra-80/lib/sparcv9/libc_psr.so.1

... which is just a symlink:

lrwxrwxrwx   1 root     root            1 Mar 31 03:32 32 -> ./
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root     root            7 Mar 31 03:32 64 -> sparcv9/

Putting them in sparcv9 sounds good to me.  It's consistent with the
/kernel/fs, /usr/lib/, and /usr/lib/security naming.

Would (dest)/lib/sparcv9 have to be in LD_LIRBRARY_PATH, or would the OS
automatically search sparcv9 for 64-bit libs?

_________________________________________
Charles Clancy, mgrtcc@cs.rose-hulman.edu
sysadmin emeritus, RHIT Computer Science