| Message ID | 20100907163838.GA13615@intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 09/07/2010 09:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > * unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c: Include <elf.h> for DT_CONFIG. > Include <link.h> only if USE_PT_GNU_EH_FRAME is defined. Why is Bionic using unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c? The *only* point to using that file is PT_GNU_EH_FRAME. Rather than make this change, why not just point Bionic to unwind-dw2-fde.c? r~
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/07/2010 09:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > * unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c: Include <elf.h> for DT_CONFIG. > > Include <link.h> only if USE_PT_GNU_EH_FRAME is defined. > > Why is Bionic using unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c? The *only* point > to using that file is PT_GNU_EH_FRAME. Rather than make this > change, why not just point Bionic to unwind-dw2-fde.c? The design is that you can have a multilib toolchain with multilibs for all of glibc, uClibc and Bionic. Until the toplevel libgcc transition is more complete, actually selecting which files get built into libgcc based on the multilib being built can be tricky.
On 09/07/2010 12:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Richard Henderson wrote: > >> On 09/07/2010 09:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> * unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c: Include <elf.h> for DT_CONFIG. >>> Include <link.h> only if USE_PT_GNU_EH_FRAME is defined. >> >> Why is Bionic using unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c? The *only* point >> to using that file is PT_GNU_EH_FRAME. Rather than make this >> change, why not just point Bionic to unwind-dw2-fde.c? > > The design is that you can have a multilib toolchain with multilibs for > all of glibc, uClibc and Bionic. Until the toplevel libgcc transition is > more complete, actually selecting which files get built into libgcc based > on the multilib being built can be tricky. Ah. Well. Perhaps HJ's original patch is better. What do you think Joseph? r~
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/07/2010 12:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Richard Henderson wrote: > > > >> On 09/07/2010 09:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> * unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c: Include <elf.h> for DT_CONFIG. > >>> Include <link.h> only if USE_PT_GNU_EH_FRAME is defined. > >> > >> Why is Bionic using unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c? The *only* point > >> to using that file is PT_GNU_EH_FRAME. Rather than make this > >> change, why not just point Bionic to unwind-dw2-fde.c? > > > > The design is that you can have a multilib toolchain with multilibs for > > all of glibc, uClibc and Bionic. Until the toplevel libgcc transition is > > more complete, actually selecting which files get built into libgcc based > > on the multilib being built can be tricky. > > Ah. Well. Perhaps HJ's original patch is better. > What do you think Joseph? HJ's original patch does look like it ought to work in such a multilib configuration (i.e., solve the problem in such a configuration if it solves it in an Android-only configuration).
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Richard Henderson wrote: > >> On 09/07/2010 12:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Richard Henderson wrote: >> > >> >> On 09/07/2010 09:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> * unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c: Include <elf.h> for DT_CONFIG. >> >>> Include <link.h> only if USE_PT_GNU_EH_FRAME is defined. >> >> >> >> Why is Bionic using unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c? The *only* point >> >> to using that file is PT_GNU_EH_FRAME. Rather than make this >> >> change, why not just point Bionic to unwind-dw2-fde.c? >> > >> > The design is that you can have a multilib toolchain with multilibs for >> > all of glibc, uClibc and Bionic. Until the toplevel libgcc transition is >> > more complete, actually selecting which files get built into libgcc based >> > on the multilib being built can be tricky. >> >> Ah. Well. Perhaps HJ's original patch is better. >> What do you think Joseph? > > HJ's original patch does look like it ought to work in such a multilib > configuration (i.e., solve the problem in such a configuration if it > solves it in an Android-only configuration). > Should I apply my original patch instead? Thanks.
On 09/07/2010 01:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Richard Henderson wrote: >>> Ah. Well. Perhaps HJ's original patch is better. >>> What do you think Joseph? >> >> HJ's original patch does look like it ought to work in such a multilib >> configuration (i.e., solve the problem in such a configuration if it >> solves it in an Android-only configuration). >> > > Should I apply my original patch instead? Yes, I think so. Sorry for the run around. r~
diff --git a/gcc/unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c b/gcc/unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c index b8a7312..a762d87 100644 --- a/gcc/unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c +++ b/gcc/unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ #include "tconfig.h" #include "tsystem.h" #ifndef inhibit_libc -#include <link.h> +#include <elf.h> /* Get DT_CONFIG. */ #endif #include "coretypes.h" #include "tm.h" @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ #if defined(USE_PT_GNU_EH_FRAME) +#include <link.h> + #ifndef __RELOC_POINTER # define __RELOC_POINTER(ptr, base) ((ptr) + (base)) #endif