This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org 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] |
On Monday 22 October 2012 16:45:30 Roland McGrath wrote: > > yeah, the tests no longer crash after that > > > > configure define HAVE_IFUNC to 1, and > > libc_cv_asm_gnu_indirect_function=yes, but ia64 doesn't have ifunc > > support. > > OK. This is Working As Advertised. Machines that don't actually support > IFUNC should have a sysdeps/.../configure that does: > libc_cv_asm_gnu_indirect_function=no > ...which is what I said in the original posting. sure, but no arches do this :). unless i missed something in your branch, if you were to merge/push that today, you'd break every arch except x86/x86_64/sparc/s390. > If you want to work on souping up an automatic configure test, more power > to you. But that still won't tell you whether the dynamic linker support > is actually implemented. true, but i don't think the two things are mutually exclusive. for all arches that lack ifunc support in the ldso, they should manually set libc_cv_asm_gnu_indirect_function=no. we should also have a test that makes sure the binutils supports it because all the ifunc support so far has been optional. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |