[ping] Re: [patch] PR40134, use a linker script on arm-linux to link with -lgcc_s -lgcc

Matthias Klose doko@ubuntu.com
Wed Oct 21 13:24:00 GMT 2009


On 14.10.2009 15:38, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 11:40 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> On 24.09.2009 10:42, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>> Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>> On 22.09.2009 17:56, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>>> Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11.09.2009 19:12, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Applied and checked the attach patch on top of your patch, ran the
>>>>>>>> testsuite without regressions (applied the patch for pr40133 from
>>>>>>>> Paolo
>>>>>>>> for the same test run as well).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> updated the patch to only for arm*-*-linux-*eabi; test results at
>>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-09/msg02000.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok for the trunk?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not at all happy that backtraces are failing now on Java, but I
>>>>>> guess your
>>>>>> patch didn't cause that.  OK by me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without this patch, the build of libjava fails on arm*-*-linux-*eabi:
>>>>>
>>>>> /usr/bin/ld: .libs/jv-convert: hidden symbol `__sync_synchronize' in
>>>>> /root/gcc/newgccsnapshot/gcc-snapshot-20090919/build/./gcc/libgcc.a(linux-atomic.o)
>>>>>
>>>>> is referenced by DSO
>>>>> /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output
>>>>> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>>>>> make[5]: *** [jv-convert] Error 1
>>>>>
>>>>> Full buildlog at http://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/snapshot.log.bz2
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason for this is not linking the shared libgcj with -lgcc.
>>>>
>>>> I find this extremely surprising.  LDFLAGS are explicitly set to do
>>>> that when building libgcc.  I did this myself, and I'm pretty sure that
>>>> it works.
>>>>
>>>> svn diff -r150701:150702
>>>
>>> The setting of LDFLAGS to "-Wl,-lgcc" (working around libtool
>>> assumptions) in the Makefile gets overwritten to the empty value when
>>> called by the toplevel make, so this has no effect.  The intent to do
>>> this with a linker script was to have it done for every usage.
>>
>> I agree that a linker script is a better idea, I just wanted to know why
>> my fix wasn't working.  Thanks for that.
>>
>>>>> Am I allowed to check in this patch to fix the build failure, or do I
>>>>> have to wait for an approval of an ARM maintainer?
>>>>
>>>> I think you need an ARM maintainer, but I first want to know why your
>>>> build isn't linking with libgcc.
>>>
>>> Ok, Richard is seems to be in vacation until early October.
>
> This isn't really my area; but I'm happy to trust Andrew's judgement in
> this case.

I committed this to the trunk yesterday after confirmation from Andrew.

Paolo, is it ok to apply r147076 again to fix PR40133 ?

   Matthias



More information about the Java-patches mailing list