[PATCH 4/5] s390: Move files out of s390-64 folders

Fri Apr 17 12:34:45 GMT 2026


On 17/04/26 09:12, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> On 4/16/26 17:02, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/04/26 11:52, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>> On 4/15/26 21:39, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/04/26 05:47, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>>>> All the files in subfolders s390/s390-64 in sysdeps directory are moved
>>>>> up to the s390/ ones.  If necessary the files were merged with the existing
>>>>> ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> sysdeps/s390/preconfigure.ac was updated to reflect the removal of s390-64
>>>>> subdirectory.
>>>>
>>>> Patch looks good, just some question below if we still need some configure
>>>> and build directives.
>>>>
>>> SNIP...
>>>>> diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/Makefile b/sysdeps/s390/Makefile
>>>>> index 985b4f25ee..29d11dfdab 100644
>>>>> --- a/sysdeps/s390/Makefile
>>>>> +++ b/sysdeps/s390/Makefile
>>>>> @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
>>>>> +ifeq ($(subdir),gmon)
>>>>> +sysdep_routines += s390x-mcount
>>>>> +endif
>>>>> +
>>>>>  ifeq ($(subdir),iconvdata)
>>>>>  ISO-8859-1_CP037_Z900-routines := iso-8859-1_cp037_z900
>>>>>  ISO-8859-1_CP037_Z900-map := gconv.map
>>>>> @@ -43,6 +47,91 @@ $(modpfx)gconv-modules-s390.conf: ../sysdeps/s390/gconv-modules-s390.conf \
>>>>>  endif
>>>>>  
>>>>>  ifeq ($(subdir),elf)
>>>>> +CFLAGS-rtld.c += -Wno-uninitialized -Wno-unused
>>>>> +CFLAGS-dl-load.c += -Wno-unused
>>>>> +CFLAGS-dl-reloc.c += -Wno-unused
>>>>
>>>> Do we still need these?
>>> Good question. It seems it originally comes from sysdeps/i386/Makefile
>>> where it is still available.I've also found:
>>> sysdeps/m68k/Makefile:44:CFLAGS-rtld.c += -Wno-uninitialized -Wno-unused
>>>
>>> At least with a single build of gcc 15, I don't need it (also not on
>>> 31bit). I have to dig deeper in the history why it was added in the past
>>> and do some more tests.
>>>
>>> As this is a change to s390-64, I would prefer to investigate first and
>>> create a patch independent of the s390-32 removal.
>>>
>>> SNIP...
>>>>> diff --git a/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac b/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac
>>>>> index 82e1a4445f..3c384f9670 100644
>>>>> --- a/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac
>>>>> +++ b/sysdeps/s390/configure.ac
>>>>> @@ -133,5 +133,57 @@ then
>>>>>    AC_DEFINE(HAVE_S390_MIN_ARCH13_ZARCH_ASM_SUPPORT)
>>>>>  fi
>>>>>  
>>>>> -test -n "$critic_missing" && AC_MSG_ERROR([
>>>>> -*** $critic_missing])
>>>>> +# Minimal checking for static PIE support in ld.
>>>>> +# Compare to ld testcase/bugzilla:
>>>>> +# <binutils-source>/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/pr22263-1.rd
>>>>> +AC_CACHE_CHECK([for s390-specific static PIE requirements], \
>>>>> +[libc_cv_s390x_staticpie_req_runtime], [dnl
>>>>> +  cat > conftest1.c <<EOF
>>>>> +__thread int * foo;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +void
>>>>> +bar (void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +  *foo = 1;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +void bar2 (void);
>>>>> +void* bar2_ifunc (void) __asm__ ("bar2");
>>>>> +__asm__ (".type bar2, %gnu_indirect_function");
>>>>> +void* bar2_ifunc (void) { return 0; }
>>>>> +EOF
>>>>> +  cat > conftest2.c <<EOF
>>>>> +extern __thread int *foo;
>>>>> +extern void bar (void);
>>>>> +extern void bar2 (void);
>>>>> +static int x;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int
>>>>> +main ()
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +  foo = &x;
>>>>> +  bar2 ();
>>>>> +  return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +EOF
>>>>> +  libc_cv_s390x_staticpie_req_runtime=no
>>>>> +  # Check if the static linker does not generate dynamic TLS relocs in PIE
>>>>> +  # (binutils PR ld/22263), if it accepts --no-dynamic-linker
>>>>> +  # (by using -static-pie), and if it adds a DT_JMPREL pointing to .rela.iplt
>>>>> +  # with static pie.
>>>>> +  if AC_TRY_COMMAND([${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS -fPIE -c conftest1.c -o conftest1.o]) \
>>>>> +     && AC_TRY_COMMAND([${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS -fPIE -c conftest2.c -o conftest2.o]) \
>>>>> +     && AC_TRY_COMMAND([${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS -static-pie -nostartfiles -nostdlib -fPIE -o conftest conftest1.o conftest2.o]) \
>>>>> +     && AC_TRY_COMMAND([! LC_ALL=C $READELF -Wr conftest | grep R_390_TLS_TPOFF] >&AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD) \
>>>>> +     && AC_TRY_COMMAND([LC_ALL=C $READELF -Wd conftest | grep JMPREL >&AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD])
>>>>> +  then
>>>>> +    libc_cv_s390x_staticpie_req_runtime=yes
>>>>> +  fi
>>>>> +  rm -rf conftest.*])
>>>>> +
>>>>> +if test $libc_cv_s390x_staticpie_req_runtime = yes; then
>>>>> +   # Some kernels might fail with /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space set to 0
>>>>> +   # due not enough space for a brk call.  However, there is no reliable way to
>>>>> +   # test it.
>>>>> +   AC_DEFINE(SUPPORT_STATIC_PIE)
>>>>> +fi
>>>>
>>>> Now that we require binutils 2.39, do we still need these check for
>>>> static PIE?
>>>>
>>> For binutils-bfd all required patches are included in binutils 2.39.
>>>
>>> From my tests in the past:
>>> lld had also generated TPOFF relocations, which was fixed with llvm 19
>>> and I think it was backported to llvm 18 release branch:
>>> "[lld/ELF] Avoid unnecessary TPOFF relocations in GOT for -pie (#81739)"
>>> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6f907733e65d24edad65f763fb14402464bd578b
>>>
>>> But I have to dig deeper in recent lld versions. It seems as static-pie
>>> is disabled. At least when building with llvm 21, config.h claims:
>>> /* Define if static PIE is supported.  */
>>> /* #undef SUPPORT_STATIC_PIE */
>>>
>>> For gold, there is the bug:
>>> "Bug 22221 - add --no-dynamic-linker option"
>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22221
>>>
>>> Thus I would leave the test as is for now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the two points. I have to check further. But as mentioned I
>>> would prefer to leave it as is for the s390-32 removal and do some
>>> follow-up work.
>>> Is this okay for you?
>>
>> Sound good, thanks.
>>
> Then I will commit the series next week. Do you also want to add a
> "reviewed by" line for this patch as done by the other ones?
> For me your "Patch looks good" is also fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefan

Sure,

Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella  <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>