On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:21:51 +0100 Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 05.03.21 16:37, Marek Behun wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 11:00:45 +0800 > > Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:13 PM Marek Behún <marek.be...@nic.cz> wrote: > >>> > >>> When building with LTO, the system libc's `errno` variable used in > >>> arch/sandbox/cpu/os.c conflicts with U-Boot's `errno` (defined in > >>> lib/errno.c) with the following error: > >>> .../ld: errno@@GLIBC_PRIVATE: TLS definition in /lib64/libc.so.6 > >>> section .tbss mismatches non-TLS reference in > >>> /tmp/u-boot.EQlEXz.ltrans0.ltrans.o > >> > >> Do you know if this is the expected behavior when enabling LTO on the > >> compiler? > > > > I don't, but this is a bug anyway. The symbol clashes with the symbol > > from glibc. Does somebody know whether the usage of this symbol in os.c > > does really use glibc's version or U-Boot's one? > > > > Hello Marek, > > Why do you resort to assembler in your patch instead of simply using: > > #define errno __uboot_errno > > to substitute the symbol? Meeeeeh. :D That would just make error messages from gcc more complicated, if suddenly the compiler spat out 2 more lines, saying "in expansion of macro...". I think that using attributes, static inline functions and everything else the compiler provides instead of macros is better. > Why explicitly set errno = 0? Globals are automatically initialized to zero. I just added the symbol renaming part, the = 0 assignment was already there. I don't think this commit should remove it. If we want that, we can make it in another commit. Marek
