Sweet! Thanks! We hadn't merged that bit into our tree yet...
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> This breaks constructors on pretty much every elf+newlib target,
> because newlib and gcc both use HAVE_INITFINI_ARRAY (and have for many
> years) but the tests don't match. GCC puts ctors in .ctors but libgcc
> is built without support for t
This breaks constructors on pretty much every elf+newlib target,
because newlib and gcc both use HAVE_INITFINI_ARRAY (and have for many
years) but the tests don't match. GCC puts ctors in .ctors but libgcc
is built without support for them (newlib's generated config headers
define HAVE_INITFINI_A
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> > Require a good assembler on ELF targets and just enable this by default
>> > for them without trying a configure test that won't work for cross
>> > compilation (AC_RUN_IFELSE is bad).
>> >
>> > T
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > Require a good assembler on ELF targets and just enable this by default
> > for them without trying a configure test that won't work for cross
> > compilation (AC_RUN_IFELSE is bad).
> >
> > The toplevel config/elf.m4 provides a good notion of what is or is
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> nd/or add another test to it that tests
>> > that you can actually use
>> > .section .init_array
>> > and it will use correct section flags
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> nd/or add another test to it that tests
> > that you can actually use
> > .section .init_array
> > and it will use correct section flags for the section.
> >
>
> We need this information in config.gcc.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:09 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> nd/or add another test to it that tests
>> that you can actually use
>> .section .init_array
>> and it will use correct section flags for the section.
>>
>
> We need this information in con
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
nd/or add another test to it that tests
> that you can actually use
> .section .init_array
> and it will use correct section flags for the section.
>
We need this information in config.gcc. But config.gcc is used
before assembler and readelf
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:19 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> This patch broke bootstrap on AIX. It emits a ".section" op in
> assembly but ".section" is an ELF syntax op not AIX XCOFF.
>
> FE..initialize_critical:
> .section .init_array
>
> varasm.c should not be generating ELF ops for
On 08/22/2011 04:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Can I check in this patch to address AIX issue first?
I will submit a patch to test ".section .init_array" later?
Thanks.
Yes.
Paolo
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:06 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 05:09:59PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> I didn't know .init_array section was enabled for AIX. Does this patch
>>> work for you?
>>
>> Some ELF targets (e.g. arm*-linu
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 05:09:59PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I didn't know .init_array section was enabled for AIX. Does this patch
>> work for you?
>
> Some ELF targets (e.g. arm*-linux*) don't use elfos.h. IMHO you should
> instead add
>
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 05:09:59PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I didn't know .init_array section was enabled for AIX. Does this patch
> work for you?
Some ELF targets (e.g. arm*-linux*) don't use elfos.h. IMHO you should
instead add
#ifndef __ELF__
#error NonELF
#endif
to gcc_AC_INITFINI_ARRAY test.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 8:09 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I didn't know .init_array section was enabled for AIX. Does this patch
> work for you?
>
> Sorry about the breakage.
I am not exactly sure why .init_array sections are enabled for AIX.
The configure test succeeds. Is the problem with the config
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:19 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> This patch broke bootstrap on AIX. It emits a ".section" op in
> assembly but ".section" is an ELF syntax op not AIX XCOFF.
>
> FE..initialize_critical:
> .section .init_array
>
> varasm.c should not be generating ELF ops for
This patch broke bootstrap on AIX. It emits a ".section" op in
assembly but ".section" is an ELF syntax op not AIX XCOFF.
FE..initialize_critical:
.section.init_array
varasm.c should not be generating ELF ops for non-ELF targets.
config.log shows:
gcc_cv_initfini_array=yes
tm_f
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 07:47:40AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> 2011-08-19 H.J. Lu
>>
>> PR target/46770
>> * config.gcc (tm_file): Add initfini-array.h if
>> .init_arary/.fini_array supported.
>
> s/arary/array/
>
> Ok if no
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 07:47:40AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 2011-08-19 H.J. Lu
>
> PR target/46770
> * config.gcc (tm_file): Add initfini-array.h if
> .init_arary/.fini_array supported.
s/arary/array/
Ok if nobody objects within 24 hours, but please watch for any fallouts.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Sorry for the delay.
>
>> --- a/gcc/config.gcc
>> +++ b/gcc/config.gcc
>> @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@
>> # configure_default_options
>> # Set to an initializer for configure_default_options
>> # in configargs
Sorry for the delay.
> --- a/gcc/config.gcc
> +++ b/gcc/config.gcc
> @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@
> # configure_default_options
> #Set to an initializer for configure_default_options
> #in configargs.h, based on --with-cpu et cetera.
> +#
> +# use_initfini_array
PING
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> PING.
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> PING.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:06 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:00 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:03 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri,
PING.
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 7:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> PING.
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:06 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:00 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:03 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul
PING.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:06 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:00 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:03 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:59:28AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> @@ -2660,6 +2
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:00 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:03 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:59:28AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
@@ -2660,6 +2664,7 @@ esac
case ${target} in
i[34567]86-*-linux
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:03 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:59:28AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> @@ -2660,6 +2664,7 @@ esac
>>> case ${target} in
>>> i[34567]86-*-linux* | x86_64-*-linux*)
>>> tmake_file="${tmake_file}
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:59:28AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> @@ -2660,6 +2664,7 @@ esac
>> case ${target} in
>> i[34567]86-*-linux* | x86_64-*-linux*)
>> tmake_file="${tmake_file} i386/t-pmm_malloc i386/t-i386"
>> + use_initfini_ar
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:59:28AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > @@ -2660,6 +2664,7 @@ esac
> > case ${target} in
> > i[34567]86-*-linux* | x86_64-*-linux*)
> > tmake_file="${tmake_file} i386/t-pmm_malloc i386/t-i386"
> > + use_initfini_array=yes
> >
H.J.
> Most of this change isn't related to libgcc, except for crtstuff.c. You
> just need to find a way to define NO_CTORS_DTORS_SECTIONS
> in libgcc when .init_array is used.
sorry, I misread: initfini-array.o goes into extra_objs, not
extra_parts.
Rainer
--
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 04:59:28AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> @@ -2660,6 +2664,7 @@ esac
> case ${target} in
> i[34567]86-*-linux* | x86_64-*-linux*)
> tmake_file="${tmake_file} i386/t-pmm_malloc i386/t-i386"
> + use_initfini_array=yes
> ;;
> i[34567]86-*-* | x86_64-*-*)
> tma
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> H.J.,
>
>> Can you review this change?
>
> as you know, I'm currently working to move all libgcc-related stuff over
> to toplevel libgcc. Can you please move all but the crtstuff.c part of
> this patch over to libgcc instead?
>
> I've got a pa
H.J.,
> Can you review this change?
as you know, I'm currently working to move all libgcc-related stuff over
to toplevel libgcc. Can you please move all but the crtstuff.c part of
this patch over to libgcc instead?
I've got a patch almost ready to move crtstuff.c and other crt files,
and would
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
I can't approve the configury changes and would like to defer
to target maintainers for the target specific changes. That said,
I'm not familiar enough with the area of the patc
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:51 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> I can't approve the configury changes and would like to defer
>>> to target maintainers for the target specific changes. That said,
>>> I'm not familiar enough with the area of the patch. But yes,
>>> it's stage1 now - so if anyone else wants
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:51 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:
On 06/03/2011 05:31 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM,
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM,
Hi H.J.
This patch is also important to ChromeOS toolchain. Could you also try
to update and test it for google/main?
thanks
Carrot
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:57 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 6:05 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 20
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 20
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 20
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 05:20:48PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> This patch
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 05:20:48PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
This patch uses .init_array/.fini_array sections instead of
.ct
46 matches
Mail list logo
