From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 18:09:55 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2, 1/1] toolchain/toolchain-wrapper: fix gcc -v with relro In-Reply-To: <20201224101840.3428243-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> References: <20201224101840.3428243-1-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20201225170955.GA1680670@scaer> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Fabrice, All, On 2020-12-24 11:18 +0100, Fabrice Fontaine spake thusly: > rhash in version 1.4.0 with relro fails to build because gcc -v raises > the following build failure: > > /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 build failure is raised because the toolchain-wrapper calls gcc with > -Wl,-z,relro and as a result gcc wrongly assumes that some linking must > be done. Although I do undesrstand the problem, I am not sure this is a good solution. Indeed, it is perfectly legit to call gcc -v while doing an acutal compile or link: $ echo 'main() { return 0; }' |gcc -v -Wl,-z,relro -o ess -x c - Indeed, using -v is a good way to see the actual programs gcc calls in the various steps, and has already helped me debug some difficult issues... So, I think we need to be a little bit smarter in how we detect whether an actual link is attempted. It is however not trivial to come up with such a heuristic. But it might be simpler to "fix" rhash itself, with something like: diff -durN rhash-1.4.0.orig/configure rhash-1.4.0/configure --- rhash-1.4.0.orig/configure2020-07-14 21:35: 11.000000000 +0200 +++ rhash-1.4.0/configure2020-12-25 18:07:15.52 9581029 +0100 @@ -513,8 +513,13 @@ CC_TMP="$CC" test -n "$OPT_CC" && OTHER_CC= || OTHER_CC="gcc cc" for CC in "$CC_TMP" $OTHER_CC; do + cc_name_tmp= if run_cmd "$CC -v"; then cc_name_tmp=$($CC -v 2>&1 | tail -n 1 | cut -d ' ' -f 1) + elif run_cmd "$CC --version"; then + cc_name_tmp=$($CC --version 2>&1 | head -n 1 | cut -d ' ' -f 1) + fi + if test "${cc_name_tmp}"; then if test "$cc_name_tmp" = "gcc"; then cc_name=$cc_name_tmp start_check "$CC version" This should also be hopefully accpetable upstream (too bad they do not want to switch a common, well-known buildsystem, and that the cmake suppot has languished without any comment for more than a year now...) Regards, Yann E. MORIN. > Fixes: > - http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/8605c16cc28316954ce8b9dcc266974390c5da20 > > Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine > Tested-by: Peter Seiderer > --- > Changes v1 -> v2 (after review of Peter Seiderer): > - Fix typos in commit log and update comment in source code > > toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c b/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c > index 0fb6064b1c..2a7dd61729 100644 > --- a/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c > +++ b/toolchain/toolchain-wrapper.c > @@ -453,10 +453,11 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > *cur++ = "-pie"; > } > #endif > - /* Are we building the Linux Kernel or U-Boot? */ > + /* Are we building the Linux Kernel or U-Boot or displaying the programs invoked by the compiler? */ > 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")) > break; > } > if (i == argc) { > -- > 2.29.2 > > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'