* Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries @ 2011-02-25 19:03 Otavio Salvador 2011-02-25 20:00 ` Phil Blundell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-25 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: OpenEmbedded Devel List Hello, I am fighting with an issue for last cuple of days and after checking a lot of weird stuff it seems that the root cause of problem is a linking issue. I am having trouble with apps using semaphores. Those are lacking the GLIBC_2.1 or similar tags and then doesn't work. I rebuilt the application to check and it keep doing the linking wrong. Any clue? Distro: minimal Machine: i586-generic -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-25 19:03 Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-25 20:00 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-25 20:14 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-25 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 19:03 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > I am fighting with an issue for last cuple of days and after checking > a lot of weird stuff it seems that the root cause of problem is a > linking issue. > > I am having trouble with apps using semaphores. Those are lacking the > GLIBC_2.1 or similar tags and then doesn't work. I rebuilt the > application to check and it keep doing the linking wrong. > > Any clue? > > Distro: minimal > Machine: i586-generic Can you be more specific about what's going wrong? I guess you are saying that your libc lacks the GLIBC_2.1 version of some symbol, but which one? Does the problem show up during linking or at run time? Which binaries in particular? p. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-25 20:00 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-25 20:14 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-25 20:40 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-28 18:01 ` Kernel Module Compilation Nick Lee 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-25 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 20:00, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 19:03 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> I am fighting with an issue for last cuple of days and after checking >> a lot of weird stuff it seems that the root cause of problem is a >> linking issue. >> >> I am having trouble with apps using semaphores. Those are lacking the >> GLIBC_2.1 or similar tags and then doesn't work. I rebuilt the >> application to check and it keep doing the linking wrong. ... > Can you be more specific about what's going wrong? I guess you are > saying that your libc lacks the GLIBC_2.1 version of some symbol, but > which one? Does the problem show up during linking or at run time? > Which binaries in particular? ... It fails at runtime. The application I am compiling is freerdp and sem_ symbols are not versioned, dunno why. Cheers, -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-25 20:14 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-25 20:40 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-25 20:58 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 18:01 ` Kernel Module Compilation Nick Lee 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-25 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 20:14 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > It fails at runtime. The application I am compiling is freerdp and > sem_ symbols are not versioned, dunno why. Do you mean that the symbols aren't versioned at all, or that they are versioned but your libc.so.6 doesn't provide the versions that the binary is expecting? If the latter, what versions does it have? Is the libc in your sysroot the same binary (ie same md5sum) that you're using at runtime? p. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-25 20:40 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-25 20:58 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-25 21:34 ` Phil Blundell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-25 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Blundell; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 20:40, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 20:14 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> It fails at runtime. The application I am compiling is freerdp and >> sem_ symbols are not versioned, dunno why. > > Do you mean that the symbols aren't versioned at all, or that they are > versioned but your libc.so.6 doesn't provide the versions that the > binary is expecting? If the latter, what versions does it have? The binary lacks version for sem_post, for example. objdump -T show the undefined symbol without the GLIBC_2.1 version. This happens only with the sem_ methods. > Is the libc in your sysroot the same binary (ie same md5sum) that you're > using at runtime? Yes the same ... in fact checking objdump of libpthread shows the symbol with the version so I am lost about why it is not using the version when linking. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-25 20:58 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-25 21:34 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-26 13:43 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-25 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 20:58 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 20:40, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 20:14 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> It fails at runtime. The application I am compiling is freerdp and > >> sem_ symbols are not versioned, dunno why. > > > > Do you mean that the symbols aren't versioned at all, or that they are > > versioned but your libc.so.6 doesn't provide the versions that the > > binary is expecting? If the latter, what versions does it have? > > The binary lacks version for sem_post, for example. objdump -T show > the undefined symbol without the GLIBC_2.1 version. This happens only > with the sem_ methods. Is it actually including -lpthread during final link? Failing to do that is the most obvious reason for not getting the right version information. p. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-25 21:34 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-26 13:43 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 15:08 ` Phil Blundell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-26 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Blundell; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 21:34, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > Is it actually including -lpthread during final link? Failing to do > that is the most obvious reason for not getting the right version > information. It does -pthread that supposelly does it plus -D_REENTRANT IIRC. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-26 13:43 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-28 15:08 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-28 16:49 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-28 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 13:43 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 21:34, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > > Is it actually including -lpthread during final link? Failing to do > > that is the most obvious reason for not getting the right version > > information. > > It does -pthread that supposelly does it plus -D_REENTRANT IIRC. Yeah, it does seem to be doing the right thing there. And indeed some of the sem_ symbols are getting correctly versioned, it's just a couple (sem_post and sem_wait I think) which are not. It looks at first inspection as though this might be a linker bug, though I can't immediately see anything very special about freerdp that looks like it would be causing things to go wrong. Some further debugging needed, though it'd be interesting to know whether it works any better with gold for example. p. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-28 15:08 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-28 16:49 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 17:17 ` Phil Blundell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-28 16:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Blundell; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 15:08, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: ... > It looks at first inspection as though this might be a linker bug, > though I can't immediately see anything very special about freerdp that > looks like it would be causing things to go wrong. Some further > debugging needed, though it'd be interesting to know whether it works > any better with gold for example. How could I make it to use gold? I am stuck on that issue since it is block us to advance on the development of a product :-( -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-28 16:49 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-28 17:17 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-28 19:33 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-28 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 16:49 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 15:08, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > ... > > It looks at first inspection as though this might be a linker bug, > > though I can't immediately see anything very special about freerdp that > > looks like it would be causing things to go wrong. Some further > > debugging needed, though it'd be interesting to know whether it works > > any better with gold for example. > > How could I make it to use gold? I am stuck on that issue since it is > block us to advance on the development of a product :-( Good question. For local testing, I think it might be sufficient to add: EXTRA_OECONF += "--enable-gold=default" to your binutils-cross recipe. You can verify whether it's worked by running "i586-oe-linux-ld --version" and checking to see whether it claims to be gold or not. That's definitely not a patch that you ought to check in, though. For wider consumption I guess there ought to be some kind of knob that DISTROs can tweak to select the linker of their choice. As far as I know there isn't any such mechanism at present. p. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-28 17:17 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-28 19:33 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 22:19 ` Khem Raj 2011-03-01 11:35 ` Phil Blundell 0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-28 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Blundell; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:17, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: ... > That's definitely not a patch that you ought to check in, though. For > wider consumption I guess there ought to be some kind of knob that > DISTROs can tweak to select the linker of their choice. As far as I > know there isn't any such mechanism at present. One interesting way to "fix" the issue is to explicitly link against -lpthread however it seems *wrong*. It seems to be a gcc bug since -pthread is suppose to handle all the needed background for it to work and seems to be doing it wrong. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-28 19:33 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-28 22:19 ` Khem Raj 2011-02-28 22:27 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-03-01 11:35 ` Phil Blundell 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2011-02-28 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel; +Cc: Otavio Salvador On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:17, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > ... >> That's definitely not a patch that you ought to check in, though. For >> wider consumption I guess there ought to be some kind of knob that >> DISTROs can tweak to select the linker of their choice. As far as I >> know there isn't any such mechanism at present. > > One interesting way to "fix" the issue is to explicitly link against > -lpthread however it seems *wrong*. > > It seems to be a gcc bug since -pthread is suppose to handle all the > needed background for it to work and seems to be doing it wrong. > Does -pthread get passed to linking step too or not. if it does then it might the order at which libpthread appears and linker picks the symbols from. > -- > Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems > E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br > Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-28 22:19 ` Khem Raj @ 2011-02-28 22:27 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 22:43 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-28 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 22:19, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: ... > Does -pthread get passed to linking step too or not. if it does then > it might the order at which libpthread appears and linker picks the > symbols from. It is done as suggested by gcc docs. It is passed on CFLAGS and supposely gcc ought to take care of adding it to linking flags automatically. No? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-28 22:27 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-28 22:43 ` Khem Raj 2011-02-28 22:47 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2011-02-28 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 22:19, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >> Does -pthread get passed to linking step too or not. if it does then >> it might the order at which libpthread appears and linker picks the >> symbols from. > > It is done as suggested by gcc docs. It is passed on CFLAGS and > supposely gcc ought to take care of adding it to linking flags > automatically. No? gcc could be used for linking too and then it should consider the LDFLAGS CFLAGS are for compiling. > > -- > Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems > E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br > Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-28 22:43 ` Khem Raj @ 2011-02-28 22:47 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2011-02-28 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 22:43, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Otavio Salvador > <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 22:19, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... >>> Does -pthread get passed to linking step too or not. if it does then >>> it might the order at which libpthread appears and linker picks the >>> symbols from. >> >> It is done as suggested by gcc docs. It is passed on CFLAGS and >> supposely gcc ought to take care of adding it to linking flags >> automatically. No? > > gcc could be used for linking too and then it should consider the LDFLAGS > CFLAGS are for compiling. From gcc manpage: -pthread Adds support for multithreading with the pthreads library. This option sets flags for both the preprocessor and linker. It seems to me that it sets both automatically, in this case. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-02-28 19:33 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 22:19 ` Khem Raj @ 2011-03-01 11:35 ` Phil Blundell 2011-03-01 11:47 ` Otavio Salvador 1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-03-01 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 19:33 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:17, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > ... > > That's definitely not a patch that you ought to check in, though. For > > wider consumption I guess there ought to be some kind of knob that > > DISTROs can tweak to select the linker of their choice. As far as I > > know there isn't any such mechanism at present. > > One interesting way to "fix" the issue is to explicitly link against > -lpthread however it seems *wrong*. > > It seems to be a gcc bug since -pthread is suppose to handle all the > needed background for it to work and seems to be doing it wrong. I just tried linking xfreerdp by hand with gold and the resulting binary seemed to come out fine. So I think this is indeed a bug in GNU ld. It does seem to be sensitive to the order in which things are mentioned in the command line: if you put -lpthread first then GNU ld gets it right. But if -lpthread is at the end then it seems to fail to pick up the versioning information for symbols which are also mentioned (even as SHT_UNDEF) in other objects. Clearly that can't be the whole story though because if it was that simple then it would be failing with everything. I guess you need to either debug this further or switch to using gold for your own builds. p. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-03-01 11:35 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-03-01 11:47 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-03-02 15:41 ` Phil Blundell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2011-03-01 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Blundell; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:35, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 19:33 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:17, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > I just tried linking xfreerdp by hand with gold and the resulting binary > seemed to come out fine. So I think this is indeed a bug in GNU ld. Personally I think we need to trace it down (we as project) since it can lead to broken and difficult to trace behaviour. It took 3 days until I managed to identify the symbol failure. I am far from an expert on linking and GNU ld. For debugging it I'd need guidance. > It does seem to be sensitive to the order in which things are mentioned > in the command line: if you put -lpthread first then GNU ld gets it > right. But if -lpthread is at the end then it seems to fail to pick up > the versioning information for symbols which are also mentioned (even as > SHT_UNDEF) in other objects. Clearly that can't be the whole story > though because if it was that simple then it would be failing with > everything. I guess you need to either debug this further or switch to > using gold for your own builds. For now, I did: +do_configure_prepend() { + # workaround gcc linking bug + find ${S} -name 'Makefile.am' | xargs -n 1 sed 's,-pthread,-lpthread -D_REENTRANT,g' -i +} This fixes the issue for me, but it is clearly a workaround. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-03-01 11:47 ` Otavio Salvador @ 2011-03-02 15:41 ` Phil Blundell 2011-03-03 4:18 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-03-02 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Otavio Salvador; +Cc: openembedded-devel On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 11:47 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:35, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 19:33 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:17, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > > I just tried linking xfreerdp by hand with gold and the resulting binary > > seemed to come out fine. So I think this is indeed a bug in GNU ld. > > Personally I think we need to trace it down (we as project) since it > can lead to broken and difficult to trace behaviour. It took 3 days > until I managed to identify the symbol failure. Yeah, that might be true. Or we could maybe just switch the default linker to be gold, at least on targets that it supports. > I am far from an expert on linking and GNU ld. For debugging it I'd > need guidance. I think the place to start looking would be _bfd_elf_merge_symbol(), which is in bfd/elflink.c. This gets called by elf_link_add_object_symbols() to record the syms that it finds and I suspect that one or other of those functions is probably doing the wrong thing. Or, if you don't want to debug it yourself, you could try to create a testcase that shows the problem and then file a bug report with binutils upstream. p. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-03-02 15:41 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-03-03 4:18 ` Khem Raj 2011-03-04 16:09 ` Phil Blundell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2011-03-03 4:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel; +Cc: Otavio Salvador On (02/03/11 15:41), Phil Blundell wrote: > On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 11:47 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:35, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 19:33 +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 17:17, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > > > I just tried linking xfreerdp by hand with gold and the resulting binary > > > seemed to come out fine. So I think this is indeed a bug in GNU ld. > > > > Personally I think we need to trace it down (we as project) since it > > can lead to broken and difficult to trace behaviour. It took 3 days > > until I managed to identify the symbol failure. > > Yeah, that might be true. Or we could maybe just switch the default > linker to be gold, at least on targets that it supports. Yes I have been doing this slowly for ARM. but probably it will be better with gcc 4.6 where linker will be selectable with options > > > I am far from an expert on linking and GNU ld. For debugging it I'd > > need guidance. > > I think the place to start looking would be _bfd_elf_merge_symbol(), > which is in bfd/elflink.c. This gets called by > elf_link_add_object_symbols() to record the syms that it finds and I > suspect that one or other of those functions is probably doing the wrong > thing. > > Or, if you don't want to debug it yourself, you could try to create a > testcase that shows the problem and then file a bug report with binutils > upstream. > > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel -- -Khem ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-03-03 4:18 ` Khem Raj @ 2011-03-04 16:09 ` Phil Blundell 2011-03-04 16:54 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-03-04 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 20:18 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On (02/03/11 15:41), Phil Blundell wrote: > > Yeah, that might be true. Or we could maybe just switch the default > > linker to be gold, at least on targets that it supports. > > Yes I have been doing this slowly for ARM. but probably it will be > better with gcc 4.6 where linker will be selectable with options I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying there. Can you clarify? p. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-03-04 16:09 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-03-04 16:54 ` Khem Raj 2011-03-04 21:47 ` Phil Blundell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2011-03-04 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On 3/4/2011 8:09 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 20:18 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> On (02/03/11 15:41), Phil Blundell wrote: >>> Yeah, that might be true. Or we could maybe just switch the default >>> linker to be gold, at least on targets that it supports. >> >> Yes I have been doing this slowly for ARM. but probably it will be >> better with gcc 4.6 where linker will be selectable with options > > I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying there. Can you > clarify? > I am talking about --with-linker option > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-03-04 16:54 ` Khem Raj @ 2011-03-04 21:47 ` Phil Blundell 2011-03-04 23:48 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-03-04 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 08:54 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > I am talking about --with-linker option Does that make much of a difference here? I would have thought that any given DISTRO would probably want to use either gold or ld.bfd as the default and they could manage that by just configuring binutils appropriately, and/or by installing a wrapper script for ld. It's not totally obvious to me that --with-linker solves any significant problem. p. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries 2011-03-04 21:47 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-03-04 23:48 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2011-03-04 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 08:54 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> I am talking about --with-linker option > > Does that make much of a difference here? I would have thought that any > given DISTRO would probably want to use either gold or ld.bfd as the > default and they could manage that by just configuring binutils > appropriately, and/or by installing a wrapper script for ld. It's not > totally obvious to me that --with-linker solves any significant problem. > I think there is more to integration of gold in 4.6 since in local setups I have got trunk/4.6 working well with gold but not 4.5 since trunk worked for me I really did not dig deeper why it would not work on 4.5 > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Kernel Module Compilation 2011-02-25 20:14 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-25 20:40 ` Phil Blundell @ 2011-02-28 18:01 ` Nick Lee 1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread From: Nick Lee @ 2011-02-28 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-devel I'm compiling a kernel module under openembedded, and it inherits from module and update-rc.d. I want to pass a preprocessor directive, TESTFLAG, to my module source code. I've tried setting -DTESTFLAG in CFLAGS, KERNEL_CFLAGS and EXTRA_CFLAGS in my recipe and in the Makefile for my module. In none of these cases do I get TESTFLAG defined in my module code. The best I can get is a helpful suggestion to use EXTRA_CFLAGS, which doesn't work. What on earth am I doing wrong? It doesn't seem like a particularly unusual thing to want to do! I've spent most of a day trawling the internet and openembedded archives for a solution to this problem, and have found nothing. Maybe it shows a lack of google skills on my part... Nick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-03-04 23:50 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-02-25 19:03 Missing GLIBC_<version> tags on binaries Otavio Salvador 2011-02-25 20:00 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-25 20:14 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-25 20:40 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-25 20:58 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-25 21:34 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-26 13:43 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 15:08 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-28 16:49 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 17:17 ` Phil Blundell 2011-02-28 19:33 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 22:19 ` Khem Raj 2011-02-28 22:27 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-02-28 22:43 ` Khem Raj 2011-02-28 22:47 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-03-01 11:35 ` Phil Blundell 2011-03-01 11:47 ` Otavio Salvador 2011-03-02 15:41 ` Phil Blundell 2011-03-03 4:18 ` Khem Raj 2011-03-04 16:09 ` Phil Blundell 2011-03-04 16:54 ` Khem Raj 2011-03-04 21:47 ` Phil Blundell 2011-03-04 23:48 ` Khem Raj 2011-02-28 18:01 ` Kernel Module Compilation Nick Lee
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.