This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
>>>>> Zack Weinberg writes: Zack> Andreas Jaeger wrote: >> >>>>> Zack Weinberg writes: >> >> > The new x86 back end wants to generate trampolines to load the PIC >> > base register all the time (yes, even with -march=i386). The current >> > crt[in] generation can't handle this. So I rewrote it again. This >> > version does the split in the object file; it turns out to be much, >> > much cleaner that way. On the other hand, it is dependent on more >> > gnu-binutils-specific features than before. I'm using binutils >> > 2.9.5.0.10, but it ought to work with 2.9.1 and later, at least. >> >> Do I understand your statement correctly that the current gcc cvs >> version doesn't correctly build glibc? How severe is the problem? Zack> When I tried it, it blew up in the others pass trying to link the Zack> first program against the just-built library. Error was "undefined Zack> reference to symbol `LPR0'" or something like that; the problem was Zack> that the new ia32 backend does -fPIC like this: Zack> .LPR0: Zack> movl (%esp), %ebx Zack> ret Zack> _init: Zack> pushl %ebp Zack> movl %esp, %ebp Zack> pushl %ebx Zack> call .LPR0 Zack> ... body of function here ... Zack> The .LPR0 label and its code are lost when we split up the file. :-( Zack> sysdeps/i386/Makefile adds -march=i386 to CFLAGS, which is supposed to Zack> go back to the old style of -fPIC. It works on a test file, but Zack> doesn't on initfini.c, I don't know why. I've got to concerns: I'd like to see glibc 2.1.2 asap released - and I don't like another glibc release that only works with the current but not with the next gcc compiler [1]. Richard, is there no way to get this working with all versions of gcc including the current development version? Andreas Footnotes: [1] gcc 2.95 doesn't work correctly with glibc 2.1.1 - and I don't like to see a 2.1.2 which doesn't work with gcc 2.96. -- Andreas Jaeger aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de jaeger@informatik.uni-kl.de for pgp-key finger ajaeger@aixd1.rhrk.uni-kl.de
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |