LTO and libelf (and FreeBSD)

Steve Kargl sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
Sat May 22 22:48:00 GMT 2010


On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Steve Kargl
> <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > I only read the gcc@ archive, so sorry about breaking the thread.
> > Testing with gfortran finds
> >
> > FreeBSD's libelf with no patches.
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 40
> >
> > FreeBSD's libelf with Kia's patch
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 19
> >
> > No patches. ?libelf from http://www.mr511.de/software/libelf-0.8.12.tar.gz
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 3
> >
> > Richi's lto-elf.c patch with libelf from URL://libelf-0.8.12.tar.gz
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 3
> >
> > FreeBSD's libelf with Kia and Richi's patches.
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 19
> 
> Hm, so you didn't test FreeBSD's libelf without Kias patch but my GCC patch
> applied.  (at least my patch doesn't make the situation worse for any case
> it seems)
> 
> I would apply my patch as a reasonable workaround for (parts of) the
> FreeBSD libelf problems if it alone makes a difference.
> 

FreeBSD libelf with your patch and without Kai patch.

                === gfortran Summary ===

# of expected passes            34204
# of unexpected failures        19
# of expected failures          33
# of unresolved testcases       16
# of unsupported tests          266

If you're convinced that elf_getbase in your patch can't
return -1 indicating a error, then I suppose your patch
is OK.

-- 
steve



More information about the Gcc mailing list