On 11/14/2011 05:15 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > > We're unlikely to see testing before we apply the patch, and for oddball > > archs, even afterwards. > > Yes, but if you put this change in just before release you > get much less testing than if you do it with several months > before release. This kind of change makes me nervous. > > > What we can do the qualify it on a build test > > (and assume that if it builds, it runs, which I think is a safe assumption). > > One of the failure cases I was thinking of is that if PIE means > the platform's loader puts things in a different bit of the > address space this might break TCG's assumptions about maximum > distances between the codegen buffer and host C code. (That's > a bug in TCG really but it would still be near-to-release > breakage.)
Is this assumption tested at runtime? If so, we can have the failure message mumble something about building with --disable-pie. > But yes, a build test would be a good start. (My money's > on it failing to build on MacOSX.) I'll post a v3 with an additional test. > PS: what's the -DPIE needed for? Copied from cookbook. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
