Ian Lance Taylor ian@zembu.com
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
look like?

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 mailing list