This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [PATCH] RFA MIPS pr 14198
- From: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- To: david daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>
- Cc: law at redhat dot com, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:38:28 -0800
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] RFA MIPS pr 14198
- References: <69397FFCADEFD94F8D5A0FC0FDBCBBDEF3EA@avtrex-server.hq.avtrex.com>
On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 19:33, david daney wrote:
> >In message <1077159735.17315.136.camel@dzur.sfbay.redhat.com>, Eric Christopher
> >writes:
> >>
> >>> *looks* ... no, on reflection, as long as we have to keep this
> >>> bletcherous feature around, we might as well make sure it works.
> >>> Go ahead and commit your original patch.
> >>
> >>Other than all the pch regressions. I'd prefer he figure those out
> >>before committing. :)
> >Is it possible that David is working on a system with exec-shield and
> >memory layout randomization? In the past when I've seen PCH stuff
> >randomly pass/fail it's always been solved by turning off the exec-shield
> >and related bits.
>
> It is a cross compiler running of Fedora 1. This may have exec-shield, I am not sure.
>
It does and very likely is causing the problems given:
> Target is plain Linux 2.4.25-pre6 from linux-mips.org w/ glibc 2.2.5 running on a MIPS 4Kc core. But this is not important because the tests that fail are all run on the compiler host.
I have the following in /etc/sysctl.conf
# Turning off exec shield.
kernel.exec-shield = 0
kernel.exec-shield-randomize = 0
If you turn off exec shield and rerun the tests an they pass go ahead
and commit. Otherwise I'd appreciate you looking into it.
Thanks.
-eric
--
Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>