From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/4471 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Spencer Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: libgcc --disable-shared test case Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 00:55:11 +0100 Message-ID: <52D1D9DF.1010300@barfooze.de> References: <20131017060913.GA1957@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1389462032.1176.18@driftwood> <20140111215106.GV24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <52D1BFE9.6040703@landley.net> <20140111222354.GW24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <52D1C7EC.5090908@landley.net> <20140111224509.GX24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1389484534 5192 80.91.229.3 (11 Jan 2014 23:55:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:55:34 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-4475-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Jan 12 00:55:43 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W28P1-0002OP-3w for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 00:55:43 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 28445 invoked by uid 550); 11 Jan 2014 23:55:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 28437 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2014 23:55:42 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 In-Reply-To: <20140111224509.GX24286@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:4471 Archived-At: 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 >