From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:17:09 +0100
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] toolchain/toolchain-wrapper: fix gcc -v
 with relro
In-Reply-To: <20201223182740.2879160-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>
References: <20201223182740.2879160-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20201223211709.45524133@gmx.net>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

Hello Fabrice,

patch works, some nitpicks/possible improvements below:

On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 19:27:40 +0100, Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> wrote:

> rhash in version 1.4.0 with relro fails to build because gcc -v raises
> the following build failure:

...with relro enabled fails to build because the configure step call
'.../host/bin/arm-linux-gcc -v' (which is done via the buildroot
toolchain-wrapper fails with:

>
> /data/buildroot-test/instance-1/output-1/host/mips64el-buildroot-linux-gnu/sysroot/soft-float/el/usr/lib64/Scrt1.o: In function `__start':
> (.text+0x20): undefined reference to `main'
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> Run result: 1
>
> This buid failure is raised because the toolchain-wrapper calls gcc with

s/buid/build/

> -Wl,-z,relro and as a result gcc wrongly assumes that some linking must
> be done with -v

...some linking must be done.

>
> Fixes:
>  - http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/8605c16cc28316954ce8b9dcc266974390c5da20
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>
> ---
>  toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c b/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c
> index 0fb6064b1c..4c3375cfbc 100644
> --- a/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c
> +++ b/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c
> @@ -456,7 +456,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  	/* Are we building the Linux Kernel or U-Boot? */

With your enhancement the comment above is no longer fully applicable...


>  	for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
>  		if (!strcmp(argv[i], "-D__KERNEL__") ||
> -		    !strcmp(argv[i], "-D__UBOOT__"))
> +		    !strcmp(argv[i], "-D__UBOOT__") ||
> +		    !strcmp(argv[i], "-v"))

Is a '-v ' somewhere in the argument list a strong enough condition, or
should it be better '-v' as the only argument?

>  			break;
>  	}
>  	if (i == argc) {

Build failure fixed, so you can add my:

Tested-by: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@gmx.net>

Regards,
Peter