From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:58:19 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Two or three stages gcc build? In-Reply-To: <20130919070255.17ce9a82@skate> References: <20130705233831.12030038@skate> <9C6FE6D2-322A-41E7-8B82-C623B5C1F754@gmail.com> <20130906145821.4ce0ab13@skate> <20130919070255.17ce9a82@skate> Message-ID: <20131008205819.7f9bd5c1@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Khem, Any input on the below questions? :-) Thanks! Thomas On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:02:55 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Khem Raj, > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:59:34 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > In the mean time, I've experimented a bit and actually implemented it. > > > The patch hasn't been merged yet in Buildroot, but it has been posted: > > > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/2013-September/077344.html. > > > > > > Don't hesitate to have a look and tell me what you think. > > > > OK. The patch looks ok to me. one thing > > After merging the patch, we got a report that it breaks SSP support, > see [1]. After investigation, depending on the architecture, the > __stack_chk_fail symbol maybe be part of the TLS (it's the case on x86, > but on ARM, for example). > > However, since we're now only doing gcc-initial -> uclibc -> gcc-final, > and gcc-initial has no thread/TLS support, it breaks the build of > uClibc when SSP support is enabled (in such a case, uClibc is built > with -fstack-protector, which creates references to __stack_chk_fail, > but this symbol isn't available because we don't have TLS support). > > Have you already seen this problem? What solution do you suggest? > > Thanks! > > Thomas > > [1] > http://buildroot-busybox.2317881.n4.nabble.com/uClibc-fails-to-build-with-stack-smash-protection-td51478.html -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com