On 01/11/14 15:51, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:40:32AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>> Looks like my toolchain doesn't exhibit this behavior? (Not after I
>> hacked the hell out of the libgcc.a build, anyway...)
>
> What arch?

i686.

> I would expect this to show up on i386 but not x86_64,
> since the latter has native division and libgcc functions won't be
> needed. It could also be an issue of -O level if gcc decided to use
> long division instead of bitshift to implement /16.

It was -O2 because your email said -O2. Only thing that changed in the 
command line(s) was the compiler binary path/name.

> Or it might be something completely different.
>
> If you could share the two versions of libfoo.so, a.out, and maybe
> even libgcc.a, I can probably figure out what's going on.

Tarball of the newly built stuff attached, the other stuff should be at 
http://landley.net/simple-root-filesystem-i686.tar.bz2 (which isn't the 
release version because I made sure this one _wasn't_ built from a stage 
2 cross compiler. This is from an aboriginal build that didn't do a 
stage 2 cross compiler, but built everything with the "simple" cross 
compiler.)

> Rich

Rob