From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Brodkin Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:45:32 +0000 Subject: [Buildroot] Numerous ARC related toolchain issues In-Reply-To: <20160610093722.714b0240@free-electrons.com> References: <20160609175017.0d9fae13@free-electrons.com> <1465543337.2942.15.camel@synopsys.com> <20160610093722.714b0240@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <1465544685.2942.24.camel@synopsys.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 09:37 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 07:23:04 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/d73/d732127d136bacc6bc17b742028691437df7f5f9/build-end.log > > > BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.26.51.20160308 assertion fail elf32-arc.c:1566?? > > This is yet another manifestation of PIE invocation on ARC. > > We'll need to disable usage of PIE in linuxpam. > > Ah, OK. Shouldn't gcc be modified on ARC to either ignore the pie flag, > or alternatively bail out immediately with a clear error? At least it > would be much more easy to analyze the error than a weird assertion > failure down the road in the linker. See PIE is a real requirement for U-Boot (because it relocates itself on early boot) and for some reason U-Boot gets built with -PIE flag perfectly fine. So we cannot just disable PIE support at least until U-Boot for ARC gets auto-relocated. But for user-space apps indeed we don't support PIE still and so existing code in toolchain fails here and there. Funny enough that's better to see a failure during compilation compared to silent segfault on attempt to run already built app. BTW now I can recall that exactly this hit me with older toolchain - I needed wireshark so I built it flawlessly but on execution dumpcap was segfaulting right on start. But being lazy enough I never sent a patch to disable PIE in Wireshark :( -Alexey