Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] prepstrip: add support for elfutils strip
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 10:55:32 Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 11-10-2011 10:18:16 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > For the sake of it, can we try to detect GNU binutils here? Our > > > profiles restrict strip, so no immediate problem here if not. > > > > adding detection here will fix most, but i don't think all, of your > > troubles > > > > the code still unconditionally runs `strip -g` which i'm guessing won't > > work for you ... > > > > also, we only run strip on ELF files. so if you aren't an ELF system, > > even fixing the -g won't help. > > Actually, on Solaris (ELF) the way Portage uses strip will damage the > files in such a way that they become unusable. And we're using GNU > binutils there. So I guess it's ok to assume here. In the profiles > stripping is just disabled everywhere it breaks. so GNU binutils is broken on Solaris ? the flags that portage uses should be safe (by design) when stripping ELF files. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] prepstrip: add support for elfutils strip
On 11-10-2011 10:18:16 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > For the sake of it, can we try to detect GNU binutils here? Our > > profiles restrict strip, so no immediate problem here if not. > > > adding detection here will fix most, but i don't think all, of your troubles > > the code still unconditionally runs `strip -g` which i'm guessing won't work > for you ... > > also, we only run strip on ELF files. so if you aren't an ELF system, even > fixing the -g won't help. Actually, on Solaris (ELF) the way Portage uses strip will damage the files in such a way that they become unusable. And we're using GNU binutils there. So I guess it's ok to assume here. In the profiles stripping is just disabled everywhere it breaks. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] prepstrip: add support for elfutils strip
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 03:11:03 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 00:50:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > If people use strip from the elfutils package, take advantage of some of
> > its neat features (like splitting + stripping in one step).
> >
> > +# See if we're using GNU binutils or elfutils for stripping
> > +case $(${STRIP} --version) in
> > +*elfutils*) # dev-libs/elfutils
> > + # elfutils default behavior is always safe, so don't need to specify
> > + # any flags at all
> > + SAFE_STRIP_FLAGS=""
> > + DEF_STRIP_FLAGS="--remove-comment"
> > + SPLIT_STRIP_FLAGS="-f"
> > + ;;
> > +*) # assume binutils
>
> For the sake of it, can we try to detect GNU binutils here? Our
> profiles restrict strip, so no immediate problem here if not.
>
> % strip --version
> strip: unrecognized option: --version
> Usage: strip [-AnuSXx] [-] [-d filename] [-s filename] [-R filename] [-o
> output] file [...]
adding detection here will fix most, but i don't think all, of your troubles
the code still unconditionally runs `strip -g` which i'm guessing won't work
for you ...
also, we only run strip on ELF files. so if you aren't an ELF system, even
fixing the -g won't help.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] prepstrip: add support for elfutils strip
On 10/11/2011 12:11 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 00:50:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> If people use strip from the elfutils package, take advantage of some of
>> its neat features (like splitting + stripping in one step).
>
>> +# See if we're using GNU binutils or elfutils for stripping
>> +case $(${STRIP} --version) in
>> +*elfutils*) # dev-libs/elfutils
>> +# elfutils default behavior is always safe, so don't need to specify
>> +# any flags at all
>> +SAFE_STRIP_FLAGS=""
>> +DEF_STRIP_FLAGS="--remove-comment"
>> +SPLIT_STRIP_FLAGS="-f"
>> +;;
>> +*) # assume binutils
>
> For the sake of it, can we try to detect GNU binutils here? Our
> profiles restrict strip, so no immediate problem here if not.
Sounds like a good idea. Otherwise, the rest of the patch LGTM.
--
Thanks,
Zac
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/2] prepstrip: extract buildid with readelf to avoid debugedit when possible
On 10/10/2011 09:50 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> + # if we don't already have build-id from debugedit, look it up
> + if [[ -z ${buildid} ]] ; then
> + # convert the readelf output to something useful
> + buildid=$(${READELF} -x .note.gnu.build-id "${x}" 2>/dev/null \
> + | awk '$NF ~ /GNU/ { getline; printf $2$3$4$5; getline;
> print $2 }')
> + fi
LGTM.
In case anyone is curious about what that readelf output looks like,
here's an example from util-linux built with -Wl,--build-id in LDFLAGS:
# readelf -x .note.gnu.build-id
/var/tmp/portage/sys-apps/util-linux-2.20/image/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ff/596c6113f72075beb4a40899b940750f872e72.debug
Hex dump of section '.note.gnu.build-id':
0x08048188 0400 1400 0300 474e5500 GNU.
0x08048198 ff596c61 13f72075 beb4a408 99b94075 .Yla.. u..@u
0x080481a8 0f872e72...r
--
Thanks,
Zac
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] prepstrip: add support for elfutils strip
On 11-10-2011 00:50:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> If people use strip from the elfutils package, take advantage of some of
> its neat features (like splitting + stripping in one step).
> +# See if we're using GNU binutils or elfutils for stripping
> +case $(${STRIP} --version) in
> +*elfutils*) # dev-libs/elfutils
> + # elfutils default behavior is always safe, so don't need to specify
> + # any flags at all
> + SAFE_STRIP_FLAGS=""
> + DEF_STRIP_FLAGS="--remove-comment"
> + SPLIT_STRIP_FLAGS="-f"
> + ;;
> +*) # assume binutils
For the sake of it, can we try to detect GNU binutils here? Our
profiles restrict strip, so no immediate problem here if not.
% strip --version
strip: unrecognized option: --version
Usage: strip [-AnuSXx] [-] [-d filename] [-s filename] [-R filename] [-o
output] file [...]
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
