On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/14 10:46, enh wrote:
>>
>> This feels like a bad idea to me simply because a new compiler with an
>> old runtime will generate code that fails, right?
>>
>>
>> yes, but that's already true of PIE or gnu-style hash or...
>
> That doesn't make it the right thing to do. I would argue that's a bug that
> really needs to be fixed.
it's not a bug. no one wants 22 different compilers or configuration
options, with a new one every six months or so.
>> If you can't do a configure-time test, then the way to go is either a
>> compile-time option, or to use a different target. If there's some
>> minimum version of android that has this capability, then this isn't
>> terribly hard. You may not even need a config file for this since
>> you
>> could define LIBC_BIONIC_USE_IFUNCS or something like that when
>> configured for a suitably new android version.
>>
>>
>> this won't make any difference to the developers, though. they get their
>> prebuilt compilers from us, and we'll just turn all the latest options
>> on. we don't ship a compilers for each Android version. we already have
>> 6 architectures * {clang,gcc} * {current,previous}version to ship.
>
> But that's no reason to have a compiler which produces bogus binaries.
>
> I really think this patch is a bad idea.
so we should just change linux_has_ifunc_p to return
HAVE_GNU_INDIRECT_FUNCTION; instead?
