[Ecls-list] observations

Matthew Mondor mm_lists at pulsar-zone.net
Mon Dec 19 04:08:59 UTC 2011

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:22:34 -0800
Paul Bowyer <pbowyer at olynet.com> wrote:

> Hello again Juanjo:
> Now that I have both 32-bit and 64-bit PCLinuxOS systems with ECL 
> installed on them I tried running a executable created on the 32-bit 
> system on the 64-bit system and discovered that libecl.so.11.1.1, which 
> the executable is linked against, is different on the two systems.
> I was thinking that 32-bit executables would run on a 64-bit system, but 
> not the other way around. Can I expect that to be true if I ship 
> libecl.so.11.1.1 created on a 32-bit system to 64-bit systems?
> What is the best practice to keep from overwriting an existing 64-bit 
> version of libecl.so.11.1.1?
> Maybe I'm asking a silly question...

A different configure --prefix, along with --enable-rpath should help
such that every executable loads its proper library, i.e. there then
can be multiple versions/builds of ECL, i.e. stored
as /usr/local/ecl-<suffix>/*

If your use your system's libgmp, libgc and libdffi, this could still
be problematic, but ECL also supports building its own statically, i.e.
using --enable-boehm=included --with-gmp=included --with-dffi=included,
so every build can use its own ABI-compatible version.

More information about the ecl-devel mailing list