------- Comment #2 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 22:10
-------
The libelf included in Red Hat based distros is different than the one we used
to develop LTO. There was a thread on IRC recently where Jakub proposed a way
of working around this:
(16:27:18) jakub: dnovillo: very user visible difference is e.g. for
LFS on 32-bit arches
(16:28:25) dnovillo: jakub: we have exactly one problem with fedora's
libelf. It doesn't support one of the functions that exists in the
other libelf that we use. Ian suggested a way of implementing it
using fedora's facilities, but I've never bothered yet.
(16:29:24) jakub: dnovillo: which one it is? If it is a sane API, no
problem suggesting Uli or Roland to add it
(16:30:03) dnovillo: jakub: elfx_update_shstrndx
(16:30:28) dnovillo: ian says that it can be implemented using
gelf_update_ehdr.
(16:30:48) dnovillo: i never got around to trying it, so i don't know
more details.
(16:31:45) dnovillo: i'll send mail to roland/uli, thanks.
(16:34:57) jakub: dnovillo: only elf{,32,64}_ and gelf_ prefixes are
standard SGI libelf
(16:35:09) jakub: dnovillo: elfx_ must be some weirdo extension
(16:43:03) jakub: dnovillo: I fail to see what is that
elfx_update_shstrndx good for? Just gelf_getehdr, modify the field,
gelf_update_ehdr
(16:43:03) jakub: dnovillo: if for every field we had such a wrapper,
what would we gain?
(16:45:18) dnovillo: jakub: as i said, i don't know. i don't know
libelf and i didn't write this code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38992
