On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:41 AM, <alexander.kanevs...@nokia.com> wrote: > On 01/09/2010 15:24, "ext Loïc Minier" <loic.min...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010, Michael Hope wrote: >>> The solution is to add -fno-stack-protector to the libgcc build >>> options and rebuild the compiler. I've heard (but can't track down >>> the link) that the ARM libgcc unwind functions must be built this way >>> in any case. >>> >>> See >>> >>> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/gcccvs/branches/sid/gcc-4.5/debian/patches/gcc-def >>> ault-ssp.diff >>> for how Debian does this. >> >> How can we fix this in the upstream sources? Should glibc or libgcc >> detect this erroneous state? > Probably glibc, as this error appeared in 2.12, and not reproducible with > the same gcc and flags with glibc 2.11.
There's a few questions here: 1. What in libanl has caused the new call to gnu_Unwind_Backtrace? Fixing this will remove the immediate problem 2. Does the backtrace work with -fstack-protector? 3. Should libgcc be built without -fstack-protector? (3) is interesting as libgcc is such a fundamental library that it really shouldn't have dependencies on anything else. What's the opinion of people on the list? -- Michael _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
