On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Peter Bergner <berg...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 08:36 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Peter Bergner <berg...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 16:40 -0500, Bill Schmidt wrote: >> >> Ah, never mind. I guess I need to run automake first. >> > >> > I ran the patch on powerpc64-linux (ie, Big Endian) both with and >> > without --enable-default-pie. Both bootstraps completed with no >> > errors and the without --enable-default-pie regtested without any >> > regressions. >> > >> > The --enable-default-pie regtesting shows massive failures that I >> > have to look into. I'm haven't determined yet whether these are >> > all -m32 FAILs or -m64 FAILS or both. I'll report back with more >> > info after I dig into some of the failures. >> >> Does --enable-default-pie work on powerpc64-linux? Do you >> get working PIE by default? Some GCC tests expect non-PIE. >> I fixed some of them: > > I haven't looked into any of the failures yet. That said, > powerpc64-linux is PIC by default, so I thought maybe PIE
PIC != PIE. Is PIE the default for powerpc64-linux? Please show me # readelf -h /bin/ls on powerpc64-linux. > would just work. Maybe it does and it's just powerpc-linux > tests that are failing (I run the testsuite with both > -m32 and -m64). I won't know until I get some time to have > a deeper look. That said, if there is something you know > of that I should look for or at, I'd appreciate it. > You should first verify if --enable-default-pie generates a GCC which can produce a simple hello program. -- H.J.
