[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEg67GkMJGrFz8pDPh222CoiqVTi6RoXqi8VO0OHgJRpkib9nA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:40:49 +1100
From: Patrick Oppenlander <patrick.oppenlander@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: armv7-m musl 1.2.0 toolchain crash
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 4:54 AM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> Can you clarify if the change is that the toolchain is built against
> musl 1.2.0 and now malfunctioning, or trying to link to musl 1.2.0 and
> now malfunctioning? Those are very different and it's not clear which.
>
Sorry, my previous email was no where near clear enough. I'll try to
do better this time :)
All of my toolchains are built against glibc as I build them with the
default host compiler on my Arch Linux system.
I typed out a huge email detailing dozens of tests which I performed,
but it's all irrelevant and boils down to the following:
gcc / binutils / musl / C++ link
7.4.0 / 2.27 / 1.2.0 / works
7.4.0 / 2.32 / 1.2.0 / fails
7.4.0 / 2.33.1 / 1.2.0 / fails
7.4.0 / 2.34 / 1.2.0 / works (binutils-2.34 no mcm patches)
9.2.0 / 2.34 / 1.2.0 / works
9.3.0 / 2.34 / 1.2.0 / works (using mcm gcc 9.2.0 patches)
So it looks to me like there was a regression in binutils introduced
after version 2.27 and fixed in 2.34.
BTW, the gcc 9.2.0 patches apply with some fuzz to 9.3.0 with the
exception of 0017-pr93402.diff which is upstream. I'll do further
testing over the next week or two on the gcc 9.3.0 arm & armv7m
targets with binutils 2.34 and musl 1.2.0.
Hope that helps,
Patrick
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.
