This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] glibc 2.7 compilation failure with GCC 4.2.x due to 486+-specific memmove() redeclaration and _FORTIFY_SOURCEry

On 31 Oct 2007, Greg Schafer told this:
> Umm, it appears you built Glibc with `--enable-omitfp' which is why it
> doesn't fail for everyone. `-D__USE_STRING_INLINES' is the giveaway.

Ahhh, quite right.

> Not sure whether `--enable-omitfp' is a valid config these days...

I thought it had been recommended for donkey's years because of the
performance boost: I've been using it since 1999, and this is the first
problem I can attribute to it. (There has long been discussion of making
-fomit-frame-pointer the default for x86: my understanding was that if
-fasynchronous-inline-tables were the default, as it is on x86-64, so
that exception throws from signal handlers worked in the absence of
frame pointers and the stack-frame walking MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR
was never needed, it would have been the default ever since GDB learned
to read DWARF2 unwind info. But I may be wrong.)

`Some people don't think performance issues are "real bugs", and I think 
such people shouldn't be allowed to program.' --- Linus Torvalds

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]