This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Require binutils 2.25 or later to build glibc
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 06:11:25 -0700
- Subject: Re: Require binutils 2.25 or later to build glibc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706202038480.3448@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAMe9rOq=dn7vodWdQc0ck9fEOx756Gd5nyYM8NiJgg7-0T=OVg@mail.gmail.com> <f9848e20-7c96-ca15-bb3b-a40c6fb57e7a@redhat.com>
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/26/2017 02:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Should we also allow gold 1.14 or above to build glibc? After
>>
>> commit 388b4f1a02f3a801965028bbfcd48d905638b797
>> Author: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
>> Date: Fri Jun 23 14:38:46 2017 -0700
>>
>> Avoid .symver on common symbols [BZ #21666]
>>
>> The .symver directive on common symbol just creates a new common symbol,
>> not an alias and the newer assembler with the bug fix for
>>
>> gold 1.14 can build glibc with a few "make check" errors:
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21674
>
> Do you know if the tests are miscompiled, or if glibc itself is broken?
Most of tests are OK. But some tests are linked incorrectly by gold.
> In case the latter, we should back out the change to accept gold if this
> cannot be fixed before the release.
Gold isn't allowed to build glibc as of today. Because of it, no one was
aware of gold bugs exposed by "make check" in glibc.
--
H.J.