This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC 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]

Re: gcc corrections for better pie support

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> These look like a good idea in principle.  However, they will not be
> accepted for the 3.4 branch, which is only open for fixes to
> regressions from previous versions of the compiler.

That's bad, because the ENDFILE sections are faulty for most of archs 
(they support -pie, although LD does not support it, or do not support 
it, if it would be necessary), also if someone adds -static to LDFLAGS 
and they build a shared lib, it will fail using false startfile/endfiles.

Well, I can't decide about the gcc-bugfix-procedure, it's up to you, if 
you add the patches to current frozen. I have sent these patches already 
once at 3.3.x times, and they were ignored, saying they are not CVS 
compliant. In the mean time 3.3.4 and 4 3.4.x version are out and the 
"bugs" are still there.
I consider it a mistake not to apply them.

> I think it is fair to say that the changes you want to make are 
all > bug fixes.  Therefore, they would be acceptable for CVS mainline at
> the present stage of the development cycle.  For changes of this
> textual magnitude, however, you (and the original author of the
> patches, if he/she is not you) must complete copyright assignment
> paperwork with the FSF first.  This usually takes two or three weeks,

I have read the copyright requirements, that's why I have splitted up the 
patches into small pieces, so that they can be applied step-by-step, if 
the generic one is in place, the others are only relevant for the 
specific archs and the "long taking" copyright requirements can be omitted
(as FSF says, for small changes it's enough to declare that it is
copyright free, not copied from anywhere, GPL/LGPL copyright may be 

So I'll do that:

Peter S. Mazinger (me) declares, that these patches may be used in gcc 
under GPLv2 and/or LGPL license.

> but can sometimes take months.  Instructions are appended to this
> message.  (If you've already done this *for GCC*, just say so.)

That will take so long, that 4.x will be out and the patches not be in ;-(

> I have not looked at the changes themselves.  Expect to be asked to
> make nontrivial revisions before we actually accept the changes.  You

No problem, I am not on any gcc list, so please CC to me.

> must submit each logically-distinct change separately, and you must
> provide patches against CVS mainline, before anyone will bother to
> look at them.

Attached applies to CVS as of 20041108 and it is separated into pieces
The earlier one can be used for all 3.4.x where 0<=x<=3.

> You can ensure that we do not forget about these bugs by filing bug

That would be a pitty


> reports in GCC Bugzilla (  File separate
> bug reports for each logically distinct bug.

Well, first I will wait to see what the reactions to these patches are, if 
I see any activity/comments, then I will do that, else it is useless.


Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net>           ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08  BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2

Attachment: gcc-4.0-cvs-v8.7.6.6-upstream-piepatches.tar.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]