Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add runtime-path to DynamicLinking.md #246

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 10, 2025
Merged

Conversation

hoodmane
Copy link
Contributor

@hoodmane hoodmane commented Feb 6, 2025

Changes to the conventions for #244.

cc @ryanking13 @sbc100.

@hoodmane
Copy link
Contributor Author

hoodmane commented Feb 7, 2025

@sbc100 are there other people I should ask to review this?

@sunfishcode
Copy link
Member

I wonder of @dicej has any thoughts here, from the perspective of componentize-py.

@hoodmane
Copy link
Contributor Author

hoodmane commented Feb 7, 2025

This is important for truly-at-runtime dynamic linking, but I'd think not really necessary for "componentize" dynamic linking. Maybe if there is an "install" step before componentizing it could be easier to use the rpath, but nothing that couldn't be managed by patching around the build scripts a bit. But I agree it'd be interesting to hear @dicej's opinion.

Copy link
Member

@sbc100 sbc100 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm % comments from others.

Adding @dschuff too

@dicej
Copy link

dicej commented Feb 10, 2025

This is important for truly-at-runtime dynamic linking, but I'd think not really necessary for "componentize" dynamic linking. Maybe if there is an "install" step before componentizing it could be easier to use the rpath, but nothing that couldn't be managed by patching around the build scripts a bit. But I agree it'd be interesting to hear @dicej's opinion.

Yeah, I'm not sure how componentize-py would use this offhand, although maybe it could help with finding needed .so files at component build time. I've got no objections to this PR, in any case.

@sbc100 sbc100 merged commit 4487bbc into WebAssembly:main Feb 10, 2025
sbc100 pushed a commit to llvm/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2025
…j2yaml (#126080)

This is the first step of adding RPATH support for wasm. 

See corresponding update to the WebAssembly/tool-conventions repo on dynamic
linking: WebAssembly/tool-conventions#246
llvm-sync bot pushed a commit to arm/arm-toolchain that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2025
…2obj and obj2yaml (#126080)

This is the first step of adding RPATH support for wasm.

See corresponding update to the WebAssembly/tool-conventions repo on dynamic
linking: WebAssembly/tool-conventions#246
hoodmane added a commit to hoodmane/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Feb 27, 2025
This finishes adding RPATH support for WebAssembly.

See my previous PR which added RPATH support to yaml2obj and obj2yaml:
llvm#126080
See corresponding update to the WebAssembly/tool-conventions repo on dynamic
linking: WebAssembly/tool-conventions#246
sbc100 pushed a commit to llvm/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2025
This finishes adding RPATH support for WebAssembly.

See my previous PR which added RPATH support to yaml2obj and obj2yaml:
#126080
See corresponding update to the WebAssembly/tool-conventions repo on
dynamic linking:
WebAssembly/tool-conventions#246
llvm-sync bot pushed a commit to arm/arm-toolchain that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2025
…29050)

This finishes adding RPATH support for WebAssembly.

See my previous PR which added RPATH support to yaml2obj and obj2yaml:
llvm/llvm-project#126080
See corresponding update to the WebAssembly/tool-conventions repo on
dynamic linking:
WebAssembly/tool-conventions#246
hoodmane pushed a commit to emscripten-core/emscripten that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2025
Updates `webassembly.py` to parse and store `WASM_DYLINK_RUNTIME_PATH`
that were suggested in:
WebAssembly/tool-conventions#246
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants