On 2015-02-27 15:27, Jacco Ligthart wrote:
On 02/27/2015 02:31 PM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
On 2015-02-26 21:30, Jacco Ligthart wrote:
On 02/26/2015 01:03 PM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
Thanks for the detailed analysis.
Would it be worth rebuilding pixman with 4.4.5 to see if that makes
the problem not manifest? That is not to say it's a fix if it works
- it
could just be masking the issue, but at least it gives a narrower
starting point for bisection.
Just tested, gcc 4.4.5 does not produce a working pixman
Hmm... Off the wall idea, but if you rebuild the old, known
working version of pixman on a fully up to date build box,
does that pixman then work? Or does that end up being broken
as well?
Hmm, to add to the confusion, this creates an working pixman.
So the old pixman works regardless of the EL6 build environment
but the new one doesn't. Yet the new one when built in EL7
build environment works. This is getting increasingly bizzare
and interesting.
I noticed that RSEL6 builds with different CFLAGS than RSEL7, probably
that's the next thing to test.
RSEL6: CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -march=armv5te'
RSEL7: CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches -march=armv5te -mfloat-abi=soft'
Does gcc 4.4 support -fstack-protector-strong ?
And I would have expected that -mfloat-abi=soft is implicit in
-march=armv5te, but maybe not...
Do those CFLAGS come from the SPEC file or the RPM configuration?
Does the EL7 src.rpm produce a working binary if you rebuild it on EL6?
Gordan
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.redsleeve.org/mailman/listinfo/users
