This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
RE: [PATCH v3] Fix dynamic linker issue with bind-now
- From: "Petar Jovanovic" <petar dot jovanovic at rt-rk dot com>
- To: "'Mike Frysinger'" <vapier at gentoo dot org>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 02:10:42 +0100
- Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] Fix dynamic linker issue with bind-now
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1425312822-25143-1-git-send-email-petar dot jovanovic at rt-rk dot com> <20150302173916 dot GK8519 at vapier> <002601d055e3$89cc7740$9d6565c0$ at rt-rk dot com> <20150303214744 dot GE9616 at vapier>
> that seems kind of dicey. i think doing it explicitly like you were before is less risky ?
I would agree.
> i thought we used linker scripts in glibc tests more, but i'm not actually finding any. i'm not sure if we're trying to avoid them.
> there's no way to produce a test that doesn't use linker scripts but still triggers the problem you're fixing ?
The problem itself will appear wihout linkers scripts too, but I do not know if we can have a small test with no use of linker scripts.
We could also omit a test if none can fit the existing test suite?
Regards,
Petar
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Frysinger [mailto:vapier@gentoo.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 10:48 PM
To: Petar Jovanovic
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Fix dynamic linker issue with bind-now
On 03 Mar 2015 19:54, Petar Jovanovic wrote:
> For x86-32, it will break. So, as it appears, the test is not portable.
> I can simplify it in the following way:
>
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/elf/tst-split-dynreloc.lds
> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> +SECTIONS
> +{
> + .rela.dyn : { *(.rela.dyn) }
> + .rel.dyn : { *(.rel.dyn) }
> + . += 1000;
> + .rela.plt : { *(.rela.plt) }
> + .rel.plt : { *(.rel.plt) }
> +}
> +INSERT BEFORE .init;
>
> This would also remove the need for __((section(".bar"))) in the test.
> What do you think?
that seems kind of dicey. i think doing it explicitly like you were before is less risky ?
i thought we used linker scripts in glibc tests more, but i'm not actually finding any. i'm not sure if we're trying to avoid them.
there's no way to produce a test that doesn't use linker scripts but still triggers the problem you're fixing ?
-mike