This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch, testsuite] Applying non_bionic effective target to particular tests
- From: enh <enh at google dot com>
- To: Alexander Ivchenko <aivchenk at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Chupin, Pavel V" <pavel dot v dot chupin at intel dot com>, Andrew Hsieh <andrewhsieh at google dot com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 13:08:59 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch, testsuite] Applying non_bionic effective target to particular tests
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CACysShjX480ABEnsd46bXVeo0zsrXoFLT_fFhpOebzRpF0g=Lw at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1408132043280 dot 16622 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CACysShgizQUGOP8hwjbOQon7JJVRpUoPtCqCn+r=tsSo_oByWA at mail dot gmail dot com> <D3E54630-C7B1-4F41-ADEF-52457E1E930F at comcast dot net> <CAJgzZooZCwjLeq1+GBFCk5mGtjdOvb9xFC6_WH_oto+DM+wHBQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <DCE372FA-D63D-4D91-B4D1-2AEF8DD0E5A7 at comcast dot net> <CAJgzZop3gZ1wYy4iDjQw8PQ0CGfEBh4HSDp7qo1foj1KUxvVfg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CACysShixCi_E_-QaMMAVGonqn2ubkg6x1PN6m6QNS_QuPVvzuQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Alexander Ivchenko <email@example.com> wrote:
> 2014-08-15 21:32 GMT+04:00 enh <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> can you file bugs against bionic for stuff like this? use
>> b.android.com (and feel free to mail me to ensure that they get
> Sure, I will do that.
>> one thing we'd like to do is get to a point where we're building
>> gcc/gdb et cetera without any local hacks, and when we've got to that
>> point, we're going to have to go through anything that made it
>> upstream to check that that's sane. (the weird "-shared implies
>> -Bsymbolic" GCC hack springs to mind.)
> There are more of those hacks for sure (actually "shared implies
> -Bsymbolic" is in gcc trunk, so it is not a local hack (Although, it
> doesn't neceseraly mean that it doesn't have to be changed.
yeah, this is the kind of thing that worries me most: where bad ideas
have been upstreamed, so now not only do we need to remove them from
Android's copy, we need to get them out of upstream GCC too.
> But there
> are certanly other things that are local and have to be upstreamed).
> From our side we are trying to upstream things first and then, if
> neccessary, to port them to ndk.