Re: [ping2] Re: [ping] Re: [patch] PR40134, use a linker script on arm-linux to link with -lgcc_s -lgcc

[Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>]

On 12.11.2009 19:32, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg00733.html I wrote
> > that this scheme requires fixing libtool; I never got feedback from
> > the libtool maintainers. In
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg00592.html Jakub and
> > Alexandre did "agree that the linker script for targets that need it
> > is probably easier".
> I'm still not convinced that all the targets possibly affected have been
> dealt with.

I addressed linux targets having a Debian port is available. sh/sh4 should be 
fine as it did link with -lgcc_s -lgcc before. Didn't check m68k-linux.

> But, I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough in this
> area, I'd like to see some comments from, eg, Jakub and Joseph, before
> going ahead with the libstdc++ changes for 40133.
> > > In other
> > > terms, 40134 still blocks 40133, and we cannot fix the latter until the
> > > former is really fully fixed for *all* the affected targets. By the way,
> > > that's why, sorry, I disregarded your ping in the first place, I was
> > > pretty sure it wasn't time yet...
> > So it looks like 40134 is fixed at least for all *-linux targets (I
> > accidentally dropped the patch for parisc, now testing again). How to
> > proceed with this for linux targets?
> In your original message you mentioned sparc too. Is it now fine?

no, sparc-linux was not affected, parisc was, which is now fixed on trunk.

> Anyway, the configure changes I prepared for 40133 aren't linux-specific
> would run anywhere, as I said above I'd like to be reassured by Joseph
> and/or Jakub that such kind of test is now safe to use everywhere as far
> as the compiler proper bits are concerned.

would a patch acceptable to run these link tests on linux only?

  Matthias