On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Sean McGovern <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 29/09/15 22:45, Sean McGovern wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Luca Barbato <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> On 29/09/15 02:24, Sean McGovern wrote: >> >>> --- >> >>> configure | 4 ++++ >> >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >>> >> >>> diff --git a/configure b/configure >> >>> index 49643d6..efedc67 100755 >> >>> --- a/configure >> >>> +++ b/configure >> >>> @@ -3557,6 +3557,10 @@ case $target_os in >> >>> sunos) >> >>> SHFLAGS='-shared -Wl,-h,$$(@F)' >> >>> enabled x86 && SHFLAGS="-mimpure-text $SHFLAGS" >> >>> + # Even at extremely high optimization levels, >> >>> + # suncc refuses to inline functions when >> >>> + # debug mode is enabled. >> >>> + enabled_all suncc debug && disable symver >> >>> network_extralibs="-lsocket -lnsl" >> >>> # When using suncc to build, the Solaris linker will mark >> >>> # an executable with each instruction set encountered by >> >>> >> >> >> >> Disabling symbol version lets you inline and debug? >> >> >> >> lu >> >> ____ >> >> >> > >> > I'm having a hard time remembering the context for this patch -- I've >> had >> > this sitting in my local repo for at least 2 years, if not more. >> > >> > I have a vague memory of discovering this while working on a different >> > issue with either Martin or Mans. I think it had to do with some of our >> > inline assembly. >> > >> > It only seems to occur on the suncc though, gcc is unaffected. >> >> I do not have a solaris handy, could you please test what's happening >> with this mix? >> >> lu >> >> _ >> > > Currently, if I want to build shared libraries with suncc, I can complete > the build from the following command line: > > ./configure --disable-static --enable-shared --cc='suncc -m64' > --disable-debug > > If I remove --disable-debug, it complains about undefined symbols in > several libraries that are ff_ prefixed -- which makes sense as the linker > script is removing them from global scope. I'm not sure why this doesn't > affect the gcc build. > > This warrants further investigation on my end, but it is not a blocker on > patch 1/2. > > Please consider this patch dropped. > > -- Sean McG. > I managed to find the old list thread in the archives: http://lists.libav.org/pipermail/libav-devel/2012-November/039421.html -- Sean McG. _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
