From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH RFC v1 1/1] gcc: fix problem with detecting SSP under uclibc-ng
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:11:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150918091120.723fa237@free-electrons.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+BsyQ4m2kBQkc4k702Tj8c9Y5N-eYhjy6CM-7wWRPHEpjWtCw@mail.gmail.com>
Brendan,
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 22:22:52 +0100, Brendan Heading wrote:
> > We are fine with patches being order-dependent. That's fine we have a
> > sequence number for all patches in the first place.
> >
> > So far, the effort to push upstream our gcc patches has been very
> > limited. It would be good to push some of them upstream, but in the
> > mean time, our stack of gcc patches is not that big, and is not causing
> > too many problems when bumping gcc.
>
> Yeah I also get the sense that getting patches upstream in GCC might
> be difficult, and when I was googling this I saw other examples of
> people running into problems similar to this. I would guess it's
> especially unlikely we would get patches into the versions that are in
> maintenance mode. We might have more luck with next (ie GCC 6.0).
It is indeed not necessarily easy to get patches upstream, but when it
is the proper fix, it is nonetheless what we should do.
> >> Aside from that .. GCC actually already has a block which checks
> >> UCLIBC_HAS_SSP. The problem is that it reaches it only if the glibc
> >> version check returns that the version is 2.3 or lower. The fix might
> >> simply be to reorder the check.
> >
> > If it's that simple, then it should be done :) In any case, version
> > based tests are often not a good idea, so when uClibc is used, gcc
> > should really rely on UCLIBC_HAS_SSP.
>
> Okay, I am now looking at putting together an interim patch set. I
> don't think there is any point in trying to submit them into
> maintenance releases of the existing versions but it's worth taking a
> shot at getting them into -next.
Great, thanks!
In fact, maybe uClibc-ng should have some sort of side project to
collect the gcc patches needed to build a uClibc based toolchain, a bit
like musl is doing at
https://bitbucket.org/GregorR/musl-gcc-patches/src.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-18 7:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-17 14:37 [Buildroot] [PATCH RFC v1 1/1] gcc: fix problem with detecting SSP under uclibc-ng Brendan Heading
2015-09-17 17:14 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-09-17 17:29 ` Brendan Heading
2015-09-17 17:42 ` Waldemar Brodkorb
2015-09-17 20:20 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-09-17 21:22 ` Brendan Heading
2015-09-18 7:11 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2015-09-17 22:10 ` Alexey Brodkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150918091120.723fa237@free-electrons.com \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox