Ian Lance Taylor
Tue Feb 22 07:55:00 GMT 2000
On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:24:08AM -0800, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Do you have any idea why emacs needs -G0 when built on the ppc?
> It seems that depending on the version of emacs being built we get
> away with not including the -G0 option in the CFLAGS and LD_FLAGS.
> For instance they seem to have been able to leave it out of the
> emacs 20.4 srpm ported from redhat-6.1. However when I ported the
> emacs 20.5 srpm from the current rawhide srpms (using the same three
> ppc-specific patches from our Linuxppc Reference Release 1.1 emacs
> srpm) emacs segfaults during the build process unless I add the
> -G0 flag. Is linker optimization this flakey on any other platforms?
> I assume this would be fixed in binutils right? It should go on the
> list of ppc-specific linker problems to be fixed. Thanks.
Can you do a bit of investigation of the faulting binary? Where does
it segfault? What does the bad code look like, and what should it
What would be ideal would be a test case showing the problem using a
cross-compiler; I don't know that any binutils maintainers have access
to a PowerPC system.
More information about the Binutils