On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 07:48:24PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > >On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 08:09:29AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > >>Note that we *do* use --no-relax on xulrunner-1.9, but in the CFLAGS. > >>Without it, libxul.so won't build at all ; the same applies to webkit, > >>BTW. > > Interesting. I thought --no-relax is a linker, not a compiler, option.
It *is* a linker option, but you can pass it in CFLAGS as "-Wl,--no-relax", where the "-Wl" part marks what follows as an argument for "ld". Note that if a particular option isn't recognized by the compiler, it's automatically passed to "ld". The "-Wl" simply makes that behavior explicit (just in case a particular option might be understood by the compiler and therefore not passed to the linker). > >I could reproduce the crash on alpha and spotted it to be caused by > >apparently bad g++ optimization on alpha. Adding: > >MOZ_OPTIMIZE_FLAGS := -O0 > >in xulrunner's toolkit/components/url-classifier/src/Makefile.in makes > >iceweasel work properly on albeniz.debian.org. > > Yes, Bob (compiling firefox) and I (compiling icecat) found that turning > off optimisation (for the complete build) resulted in an executable that > works. I wonder if -O1 might work okay? Depending on what kinds of optimizations are performed at a given level, it's possible that -O1 would work. Eventually, someone will probably try it to narrow down where to look for the broken code. Regardless of the outcome, it's probably a useful exercise. However, tracking down optimizer bugs is not my idea of fun... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bob Tracy | "I was a beta tester for dirt. They never did [EMAIL PROTECTED] | get all the bugs out." - Steve McGrew on /. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
