[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140511181020.0a8b66f1@free-electrons.com>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 18:10:20 +0200
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: dalias@...c.org
Subject: Re: Broken GCC versions: 4.8.2 and 4.9.0
Dear Rich Felker,
On Sat, 10 May 2014 21:05:03 -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> It's come to my attention that GCC versions 4.8.2 and 4.9.0 are
> performing invalid optimizations that result in a broken musl
> libc.a/libc.so. It's not clear yet whether there's a good workaround,
> or whether we should attempt to work around the problem, so for now,
> please just be aware that these versions of GCC cannot be used to
> compile musl. Using them to compile programs against musl should not
> be a problem. I'll post more details later. The short version is that
> it's making incorrect assumptions about the reachability of global
> variables that have a local weak definition and an external strong
> one.
Hum, interesting. I've recently tested gcc 4.8.2 + musl on ARM, and gcc
4.9.0 + musl on i386, and I could boot a minimal musl+Busybox system
under Qemu perfectly fine. Maybe the problem you refer to only affects
certain parts of libc.a/libc.so?
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
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.
