Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

Re-sending with oe-core ML in CC.

----- On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org 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.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> 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.nop-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> 
> 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 ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
-- 

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

Re-sending with oe-core ML in CC.

----- On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@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.khem@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.nop@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@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 ?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2199 bytes --]


> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> 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.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> 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.nop-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> 
> 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

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com


[-- Attachment #1.2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 204 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core-ZwoEplunGu3dfDuKDZ/zN51Ccm5ICvs9@public.gmane.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2082 bytes --]


> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@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.khem@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.nop@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@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

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2523 bytes --]

On 26 Jan 2016 17:28, "Khem Raj" <raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> 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.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > 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.nop-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >
> > 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

See http://gcc.gnu.org/PR32219 this is fixed for at least 6.0 so should
certainly be dropped for any fixed GCC. Not sure if anybody is willing to
backport this one, you might ask.

Thanks,
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mathieu
> >
> > --
> > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > EfficiOS Inc.
> > http://www.efficios.com
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4000 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core-ZwoEplunGu3dfDuKDZ/zN51Ccm5ICvs9@public.gmane.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2450 bytes --]

On 26 Jan 2016 17:28, "Khem Raj" <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoyers@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.khem@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.nop@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@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

See http://gcc.gnu.org/PR32219 this is fixed for at least 6.0 so should
certainly be dropped for any fixed GCC. Not sure if anybody is willing to
backport this one, you might ask.

Thanks,
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mathieu
> >
> > --
> > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > EfficiOS Inc.
> > http://www.efficios.com
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3772 bytes --]

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3197 bytes --]

----- On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Khem Raj raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:

>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
>> 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.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>> 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.nop-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>> 
>> 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

[-- Attachment #2: yocto-hidden-bug2.tar.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-compressed-tar, Size: 681 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core-ZwoEplunGu3dfDuKDZ/zN51Ccm5ICvs9@public.gmane.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3147 bytes --]

----- On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Khem Raj raj.khem@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@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.khem@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.nop@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@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

[-- Attachment #2: yocto-hidden-bug2.tar.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-compressed-tar, Size: 681 bytes --]

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3538 bytes --]

On Jan 26, 2016 2:59 PM, "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
> ----- On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Khem Raj raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
>
> >> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
> >> 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.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> 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.nop-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >>
> >> 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

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5526 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core-ZwoEplunGu3dfDuKDZ/zN51Ccm5ICvs9@public.gmane.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3472 bytes --]

On Jan 26, 2016 2:59 PM, "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
wrote:
>
> ----- On Jan 26, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Khem Raj raj.khem@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> On Jan 25, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoyers@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.khem@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.nop@gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5280 bytes --]

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 580 bytes --]

On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj <raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> > 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
>

Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the
removal patch?

Cheerss,
Ross

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1112 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core-ZwoEplunGu3dfDuKDZ/zN51Ccm5ICvs9@public.gmane.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 568 bytes --]

On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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
>

Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the
removal patch?

Cheerss,
Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1052 bytes --]

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1052 bytes --]

----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: 

> On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj < raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:

>> > 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

> Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the removal
> patch?

Thanks for asking, but for me a 

Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> 

in the patch commit messge is good enough. 
You'll probably want to have a link to this discussion thread 
also in the commit message. 

Thanks, 

Mathieu 

> Cheerss,
> Ross

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers 
EfficiOS Inc. 
http://www.efficios.com 

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2702 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core-ZwoEplunGu3dfDuKDZ/zN51Ccm5ICvs9@public.gmane.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1001 bytes --]

----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote: 

> On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj < raj.khem@gmail.com > wrote:

>> > 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

> Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the removal
> patch?

Thanks for asking, but for me a 

Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> 

in the patch commit messge is good enough. 
You'll probably want to have a link to this discussion thread 
also in the commit message. 

Thanks, 

Mathieu 

> Cheerss,
> Ross

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers 
EfficiOS Inc. 
http://www.efficios.com 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2617 bytes --]

Re: [lttng-dev] Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1531 bytes --]

----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote: 

> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>> On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj < raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:

>>> > 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

>> Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the removal
>> patch?

> Thanks for asking, but for me a

> Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>

> in the patch commit messge is good enough.
> You'll probably want to have a link to this discussion thread
> also in the commit message.

I have a few minutes in front of me, I'll prepare a patch. 

Thanks, 

Mathieu 

> Thanks,

> Mathieu

>> Cheerss,
>> Ross

> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

> _______________________________________________
> lttng-dev mailing list
> lttng-dev-bnB2LGs2QVJ+nrgayQ7rhA@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers 
EfficiOS Inc. 
http://www.efficios.com 

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3843 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core-ZwoEplunGu3dfDuKDZ/zN51Ccm5ICvs9@public.gmane.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [lttng-dev] Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1447 bytes --]

----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote: 

> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:

>> On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj < raj.khem@gmail.com > wrote:

>>> > 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

>> Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the removal
>> patch?

> Thanks for asking, but for me a

> Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>

> in the patch commit messge is good enough.
> You'll probably want to have a link to this discussion thread
> also in the commit message.

I have a few minutes in front of me, I'll prepare a patch. 

Thanks, 

Mathieu 

> Thanks,

> Mathieu

>> Cheerss,
>> Ross

> --
> 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

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers 
EfficiOS Inc. 
http://www.efficios.com 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3677 bytes --]

Re: [lttng-dev] Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1828 bytes --]

On Jan 27, 2016 8:30 AM, "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj <raj.khem-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>> Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the
removal patch?
>>
>>
>> Thanks for asking, but for me a
>>
>> Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> in the patch commit messge is good enough.
>> You'll probably want to have a link to this discussion thread
>> also in the commit message.
>
>
> I have a few minutes in front of me, I'll prepare a patch.

Ok. I think for jethro and master its ok, for other branches. This needs
testing
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>>>
>>> Cheerss,
>>> Ross
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Mathieu Desnoyers
>> EfficiOS Inc.
>> http://www.efficios.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lttng-dev mailing list
>> lttng-dev-bnB2LGs2QVJ+nrgayQ7rhA@public.gmane.org
>> http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3207 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core-ZwoEplunGu3dfDuKDZ/zN51Ccm5ICvs9@public.gmane.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [lttng-dev] Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1734 bytes --]

On Jan 27, 2016 8:30 AM, "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
wrote:
>
> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:59 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers <
mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>>
>> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 January 2016 at 23:14, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>> Mathieu, as you found this do you want the glory by submitting a the
removal patch?
>>
>>
>> Thanks for asking, but for me a
>>
>> Reported-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
>>
>> in the patch commit messge is good enough.
>> You'll probably want to have a link to this discussion thread
>> also in the commit message.
>
>
> I have a few minutes in front of me, I'll prepare a patch.

Ok. I think for jethro and master its ok, for other branches. This needs
testing
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>>>
>>> Cheerss,
>>> Ross
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2943 bytes --]

Bogus openembedded gcc patch

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

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.khem@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.nop@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@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 ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com