This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 1/8] Use gcc attribute ifunc in libc_ifunc macro instead of inline assembly due to false debuginfo.
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Stefan Liebler <stli at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:49:35 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] Use gcc attribute ifunc in libc_ifunc macro instead of inline assembly due to false debuginfo.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1466682952-6301-1-git-send-email-stli@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <23c1158b-a7b5-6da1-1ce4-90c6f0e9b733@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <579B6CD8.7030607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <c70c9395-a6b8-b47d-6286-8e5540762f5e@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <nnq9fr$j40$1@blaine.gmane.org> <58d9b9cb-0f2e-dace-30a7-41c15525d0ff@redhat.com>
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 08/02/2016 04:07 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> > Okay. Then I can add an extra configure check to test the gcc attribute
> > ifunc support. If there is no support, a fallback ifunc-macro which uses
> > the old behaviour could be used. Then it won't break the build but the
> > debuginfo is not correct, too. Perhaps this fallback can be removed in
> > future. Do you know if gcc in Ubuntu 16.04 has ifunc support for ppc64le?
>
> I would prefer if we could bump the minimum GCC and binutils version instead.
Is GCC 4.8 recent enough? (We required 4.7 for glibc 2.23, so moving to a
requirement of 4.8 for glibc 2.25 would be reasonable on the basis of
time-based updates to version requirements. Binutils 2.24 would be
required on the same basis and is already required for x86_64.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com