----- 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. 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
yocto-hidden-bug2.tar.gz
Description: application/compressed-tar
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
