Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Wednesday 02 April 2008 14:31, EXTERNAL Tetz Torsten (Praktikant; > ST-FIR/ENG1) wrote: >> Hello, >> >> it is this change that makes a segfaulting version out of 1.2.1. >> >> --- busybox-1.2.1/Rules.mak Sat Jul 29 00:55:51 2006 >> +++ busybox-1.2.2/Rules.mak Tue Oct 24 22:22:03 2006 (...) >> @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ >> (...) >> - CHECKED_LDFLAGS += $(call check_ld,--gc-sections,) >> + CHECKED_LDFLAGS += $(call check_ld,$(LD),--gc-sections,) (...) >> >> >> I made a test by removing "$(LD)," from the 1.2.2. version >> and it worked (produced no segfault). > > Ok. Now we need to figure out how to fix that in 1.10.0. > 1.10.0 build system is very different, so you > will have to find how the change above affect link command line > (how "good" and "bad" ones differ). > > Please make two 1.2.2 trees which have only the aboce difference > and build both with "make V=1". The output will end with something > like: > that last gcc command calls the linker, > and I bet it will be slightly different. > What exactly will be the difference?
Hello, I attached the output of the last gcc command of builds with and without the change. I kompared them and only found one difference in the commands. The option "-Wl,--gc-sections " is only used in the segfaulting build. The following messages only present in the segfaulting build (also included in the attached "V-1.2.2_segfaults" file) and not to be seen without the "V=1" make option seem to indicate that some needed sections have been removed. Regards, Torsten
V-1.2.2_working
Description: V-1.2.2_working
V-1.2.2_segfaults
Description: V-1.2.2_segfaults
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
