Re: Re: libgcc --disable-shared test case

[John Spencer <maillist-musl@barfooze.de>]

Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:38:36PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 01/11/14 16:23, Rich Felker wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 04:04:25PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> If you want to see the issue manifest without replacing uclibc, the
>>> easiest way would be to check *which* libgcc symbols got pulled into
>>> libc.so.0, then modify the test code for libfoo.so to use a feature
>>> that will pull in one of the libgcc symbols not in libc.
>>>
>>> Rich
>> My goal is to make it work, with a brick if necessary. This includes
>> making it all work under musl.
>>
>> I'm already patching the libgcc.a build to produce libgcc_eh.a at
>> inappropriate times and shoehorning in symbols that problably
>> shouldn't go in there. (And then ccwrap is shoehorning in
>> libgcc_eh.a when it pulls in libgcc.a.)
>>
>> My position on the --disable-shared gcc being subtly broken is that
>> it's a bug in gcc I should fix (at least until replacing one more
>> FSF project with something better). Generally if I can reproduce a
>> problem and get enough time to work on it, I can fix it. I just
>> wanted to make sure that my failure to reproduce this issue wasn't
>> because I subtly screwed up. :)
> 
> The way to fix it is to find the conditional logic in the gcc build
> system (I forget whether it's in configure, the Makefiles, or the
> headers) that disables use of the visibility attribute when
> --disable-shared is passed, and simply dummy it out so that visibility
> is always used. At one point we discussed on IRC how this could be
> fixed at the GCC level, so I could probably dig something out of IRC
> logs if you want.

that would be 
https://github.com/sabotage-linux/sabotage/blob/36661440192e2ec51531ea81c7866578010f3283/KEEP/gcc-454-libgcc_hidden.patch

> 
> Rich
>