On Jan 26, 2016 2:59 PM, "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote: > > ----- On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers < mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> We are noticing the presence of the following patch in various > >> openembedded gcc versions: > >> > >> 0024-PR-target-32219.patch > >> > >> "From e0d15f4f8bf28c351b9215ca37f1caa24df0e1fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> > >> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:18:54 +0400 > >> Subject: [PATCH 24/35] PR target/32219 > >> > >> * varasm.c (default_binds_local_p_1): Weak data is not local. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> > >> > >> Upstream-Status: Backport" > >> > >> However, contrarily to its "Backport" status, that patch is > >> not upstream in gcc, and we're starting to wonder if this > >> would be the patch that breaks handling of start/stop automatic > >> hidden symbols we use in lttng-ust. > >> > >> We are only experiencing problems on the various openembedded > >> compilers, but on no other distro (with same compiler versions), > >> which leads us to suspect a buggy distro-specific gcc patch. > >> > >> We've been testing with openembedded gcc-4.9.2-r0. > >> > >> The original gold linker issue that this patch was trying to > >> address seems to have been fixed in the gold linke since > >> then. > >> > >> Refs: > >> http://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/2014-May/023112.html > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-05/msg00042.html > >> http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=3cb2b003db7371b3a47d02c08352a262e1e419b4 > >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 > >> > >> Thoughts ? > > > > OE has defaulted to gcc5 since last release, and gold issue is fixed in binutils > > 2.25 > > which is what we use in 2.0 as well so it might be OK to unbolt this fix. > > Although I am not sure > > about the original problem reported in PR32219 is fixed for gcc 4.9 if we remove > > this fix. > > Have you narrowed down your issue to this patch ? if not, then it would be good > > to do so > > Yes, we have narrowed down our problem to this specific patch by > removing the patch from the OE gcc patches, rebuilding gcc, and > then building our test program with that gcc. The problem goes > away when we do so, which points directly to that patch as a > culprit. > > Test program is attached.
Ok I think we can remove this from master and jethro release > > Faulty[gcc 4.9-r0 with patch 0024]: > > main: myvar addr=0x600c90 __start___test=0x600c90 > fct: myvar addr=0x7f8733d1eae8 __start___test=0x600c90 > fct2: myvar addr=0x7f8733d1eaec __start___test=0x600c90 > fct3: myvar addr=0x600c94 __start___test=0x600c90 > > Valid[gcc 4.9-r0 without patch 0024]: > > main: myvar addr=0x600c60 __start___test=0x600c60 > fct: myvar addr=0x7fb62c758a90 __start___test=0x7fb62c758a90 > fct2: myvar addr=0x7fb62c758a94 __start___test=0x7fb62c758a90 > fct3: myvar addr=0x600c64 __start___test=0x600c60 > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Mathieu > >> > >> -- > >> Mathieu Desnoyers > >> EfficiOS Inc. > > > http://www.efficios.com > > -- > Mathieu Desnoyers > EfficiOS Inc. > http://www.efficios.com
_______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
