[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52D1BFE9.6040703@landley.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 16:04:25 -0600
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: libgcc --disable-shared test case
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
Download attachment "test.tar.bz2" of type "application/x-bzip" (7051 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
