I wrote:
Binutils (when CFLAGS includes -Os):
FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC, load offset)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (PIC main, non PIC so)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (non PIC, load offset)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (PIC main, non PIC so)
FAIL: visibility (protected) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (protected) (non PIC, load offset)
FAIL: visibility (protected) (PIC main, non PIC so)
FAIL: visibility (protected_undef_def) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (protected_undef_def) (non PIC, load offset)
FAIL: visibility (protected_undef_def) (PIC main, non PIC so)
FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (non PIC, load offset)
FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (PIC main, non PIC so)
FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC, load offset)
FAIL: visibility (normal) (PIC main, non PIC so)
All of the above goes away if I apply
binutils-2.17-ppc64_fix_testsuite-1.patch from CLFS.
FAIL: shared (non PIC)
FAIL: shared (non PIC, load offset)
FAIL: shared (PIC main, non PIC so)
This stays with that patch.
all of them go away if one runs the testsuite as:
make CFLAGS="" check
True
(but this only hides the real problem, that's why I don't do that)
Now, based on http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2004-08/msg00030.html, I
take this back. The problem is definitely with the testsuite, and
running it with CFLAGS="" looks like a good way around the GCC
assumption mentioned in that post.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
