Re: clang ld.so regress failures

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:37:12PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > With these fixes all ld.so regress tests pass again on amd64. Also works on i386. > ok? OK bluhm@ > Index: constructor/libaa/aa.C > === > RCS file:

Re: clang ld.so regress failures

> Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:46:17 +0200 (CEST) > From: Mark Kettenis > > FAIL libexec/ld.so/constructor/prog1/prog1 > FAIL libexec/ld.so/constructor/prog2/prog2 > FAIL libexec/ld.so/initfirst/test2/prog1/prog1 > FAIL libexec/ld.so/initfirst/test2/prog2/prog2 > FAIL

Re: clang ld.so regress failures

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 12:09:13AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > Mark Kettenis wrote: > > FAIL libexec/ld.so/dlclose/test1/prog3/prog3 > > > > This fails because clang doesn't respect ELF interposition: > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107625.html > > > > We

Re: clang ld.so regress failures

> From: "Ted Unangst" > Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:09:13 -0400 > > Mark Kettenis wrote: > > FAIL libexec/ld.so/dlclose/test1/prog3/prog3 > > > > This fails because clang doesn't respect ELF interposition: > > > >

Re: clang ld.so regress failures

Mark Kettenis wrote: > FAIL libexec/ld.so/dlclose/test1/prog3/prog3 > > This fails because clang doesn't respect ELF interposition: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107625.html > > We generally frown upon interposition so I can have some sympathy > for their

Re: clang ld.so regress failures

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:46:17PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > FAIL libexec/ld.so/dlclose/test1/prog3/prog3 > > This fails because clang doesn't respect ELF interposition: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107625.html > > We generally frown upon interposition

clang ld.so regress failures

Here is my analysis of the ld.so regress failures. None of the actually suggests that there is a bug in ld.so. Cheers, Mark FAIL libexec/ld.so/dlclose/test1/prog3/prog3 This fails because clang doesn't respect ELF interposition: