On 7/2/25 07:22, enh-google wrote:
enh-google created an issue (landley/toybox#554)
(was "clang build still broken" on the mailing list, but my mails to the list
[and direct to rob] are being bounced.)
Sigh. I submitted _another_ removal request to check.spamhaus.org, and
also sent a long explanatory message through their contact-center webform.
I should have saved a copy of that message so I can send it to the NEXT
one. Shipping compiler binaries means malware authors use them, virus
writers decide that gcc leaking the compiler's build paths into the
resulting binaries gives them sufficiently unique strings to check for,
and then it's just:
https://www.akamai.com/blog/security-research/new-rce-botnet-spreads-mirai-via-zero-days
Over and over again...
bounced mail first:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 12:41 PM Rob Landley
<[r...@landley.net](mailto:r...@landley.net)> wrote:
On 6/30/25 14:46, enh wrote:
sending as a separate thread, so it's obvious that there's new
information here... in particular, note that clang isn't complaining
about _attribute_ ordering, it's complaining that the _definition_ it
already saw doesn't match the redeclaration:
It built for me with the android-ndk-r27. I'm confused.
the ndk is generally behind the current platform clang.
There still isn't a self-contained NDK build I can git pull and run on
my laptop, is there?
external/toybox/lib/hash.c:309:16: error: attribute declaration must
precede definition [-Werror,-Wignored-attributes]
309 | __attribute__((__weak__)) void hash_by_name(int fd, char
*name, char *result)
| ^
Define "precede". The attribute declaration is now the first thing on
the line. (That's what commit 17d77a264ab6 changed.)
note that it explicitly says "declaration" must precede "definition".
It says attribute declaration, not function declaration.
The attribute doesn't go on the prototype. Otherwise you couldn't tell
WHICH symbol was weak.
void blah(int, char *, char *)
void blah(int, char *, char *)
What differs other than one being weak? I'm not spotting it.
i think that's exactly the complaint. if you're going to say weak, a
weak declaration has to come before anything else.
Do you have example syntax I could use? Because I have no idea what the
compiler wants.
Sigh, I can go back to #ifdefs if clang is that buggy,
tbh, i didn't understand why you made this change in the first place.
given the two variants, there's always going to be a need to build and
test both. so is "always building both [and trusting that we throw the
right one away later]" a big improvement?
I prefer dead code elimination to #ifdefs because with the first I
regression testing everything each build, and with the second there are
codepaths I haven't personally tried in who knows how long which may or
may not still compile.
---------------
but "new shit has come to light". turns out there's at least one version of gcc
that can't build this too:
```
% make android_defconfig && make
..
lib/hash.c: At top level:
lib/hash.c:309:28: error: redefinition of 'hash_by_name'
309 | __attribute__((weak)) void hash_by_name(int fd, char *name,
char *result)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
lib/hash.c:22:6: note: previous definition of 'hash_by_name' with type
'void(int, char *, char *)'
22 | void hash_by_name(int fd, char *name, char *result)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
make: *** [Makefile:18: toybox] Error 1
% cc --version
cc (Debian 14.2.0-19+build4) 14.2.0
Copyright (C) 2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
```
So it cares that they're in two different compilation units. It works
fine as long as they're NOT in the same file. That seems deeply silly,
and clearly _is_ a regression from what both gcc and clang were both
doing this time last year. I still think this is a compiler bug (weak
means there can be more than one, that's literally ALL it means), but
that doesn't mean I don't have to work around it.
No wonder musl is using:
extern __typeof(old) new __attribute__((__weak__, __alias__(#old)))
(Yelling "toro!" as the problem charges the red cape and zooms past.)
Except I was trying to do that for crypt and hit the "is old prototyped
or not" problem in the __typeof(). The alias depends on the prototype of
variant you're switching to existing, you can't #ifdef or
__has_include() for prototypes. Here I can probably switch to that, but
crypt is only _sometimes_ in the headers posix says it's in, so I was
trying to make the other way work.
> https://godbolt.org/z/qG5jxbaax
Which compiler version is this? I want to be able to reproduce it so I
can tell if I've fixed it. That site pops up a "privacy policy" and when
that's dismissed the URL redirects to just gotbolt.org with no info on
what the query was, and the tabs say "x86-64 gcc (trunk)" which is...
current gcc git maybe?
_______________________________________________
Toybox mailing list
Toybox@lists.landley.net
http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
