From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XK6xV-0001TM-Cq for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:33:53 +0000 Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:32:52 +0200 From: chrubis@suse.cz Message-ID: <20140820143252.GA23782@rei> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH/RFC] profil01: don't use address of function List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jan Stancek Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net Hi! > This testcase is failing on ppc64 BE system, because > address of &test_profil does not reference beginning of code, > but entry in .opd section: > "This section contains the official procedure descriptors. > A pointer to a function shall reference a procedure descriptor > in this section." > which was at address larger than all .text of test_profil. > > This patch is replacing address of function approach with gcc's > __builtin_return_address() to get current pc value. How is it with compatibility? In which gcc version was this building introduced? Does it work with clang? If we are in doubt, we should add a configure check and use it only when available. And probably to default to &test_profil in all cases but ppc64 BE which is known to fail. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list