gcc corrections for better pie support

[Zack Weinberg]

"Peter S. Mazinger" <ps.m@gmx.net> writes:

> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> "Peter S. Mazinger" <ps.m@gmx.net> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> >
>> I said "submit each logically distinct change separately".  That means
>> sending each patch in a separate email.  Furthermore, you broke up the
>> patch along structural lines, not logical lines.  This is less
>> convenient to review.  You listed six problems with the existing code;
>> ideally you would send six independent patches, each of which
>> completely solves exactly one of those problems.
>
> Here is the first logical unit:
> Index: gcc/ChangeLog
>
> from Peter S. Mazinger <ps.m@gmx.net>
>
> 	* moves the strings fPIC|fpic|fPIE|fpie to builtin_define 
> 	__PIC__/__pic__ (alpha,arm,pa,sparc,sparc64 -linux)
> 	* removes unneeded fPIC|fpic|fPIE|fpie strings from mips, it's 
> 	already pic and concatenates fno-PIC and fno-pic shortening specs

1) You still haven't broken it up far enough.  Your two ChangeLog
   lines describe separate logical changes.  I am not merely splitting
   hairs; I would like to approve the first part (the change from -D
   in specs to builtin_define), but I do not wish to approve the
   second part without consultation with the MIPS maintainers.

2) This is not a proper ChangeLog entry.  Please read over the
   existing file and the GNU standards for writing ChangeLogs.  If it
   is still not clear what you are supposed to write, let us know.

3) You absolutely must be working from CVS, not from a snapshot.  The
   tree changes much too fast to do anything else.

You don't have write privileges on CVS (nor may you, until your
copyright paperwork goes through); it is courteous to remind people of
this in each and every patch submission.  Otherwise (once you start
submitting good patches) you run the risk of one of us reviewers
responding with "Please apply" or even just "Ok", not realizing that
you need us to check it in for you.

> +%{fno-PIC|fno-pic:-U__PIC__ -U__pic__} %{pthread:-D_REENTRANT}"

This should not be necessary; giving -fno-PIC/-fno-pic should cause
flag_pic to be off, and thus the symbols will never get defined in the
first place.  If this is not so, then that is itself a bug that needs
fixing.

zw