https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246322
--- Comment #14 from Conrad Meyer <c...@freebsd.org> --- Could the cflags be more constrained to the specific problematic CUs? For gcc crt (probably dead now?), the exclusion should only be needed for crtend.o/So. That could either be a Makefile change, or we could #if 0 these lines from crtstuff.c? https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/contrib/gcc/crtstuff.c?revision=169690&view=markup&pathrev=209294#l483 (inside a defined(CRT_END) section starting at line 446). For llvm csu, the issue reported was specific to i386 crt1.o; globally disabling unwind seems heavy-handed. Ideally we get a _start frame on i386, but as a first step we should undisable these frames on !i386. I don't see any obvious reason llvm csu would actually emit any special last-CIE eh_frame value for i386; unlike the GNU one above, there isn't any eh_frame section symbol with magic zero value in any of the lib/csu code. The weirdest thing about i386 crt1.o is that it has two DW_TAG_compile_units and also two CIEs. Supposing that is ld.bfd's problem, could crt1 be a .a? Alternatively, we could disable the unwind directives in crt1_s.S, keeping unwind directives for the rest of crt1.o (_start1, etc). We'd lose _start, but still have a _start1 frame below main. (There is a special __EH_FRAME_LIST_END__ in contrib/llvm-project/compiler-rt/lib/crt/crtend.c, but as far as I can tell we don't build that file into userspace anywhere and it wouldn't be impacted by lib/csu/Makefile.inc CFLAGS. We use the one in lib/csu/common/crtend.c.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
