| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vipernicus
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 1462
Location: Your College IT Dept.
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| nowinter wrote: | | nxsty wrote: | | -Bdirect is obsolete |
 I thought it is your ebuild, namely 2.17, that makes use of -Bdirect, and the one I actually use (although I also have 2.17.50.0.3). Does what I quoted mean I should make use of -hash-style only perspectively? I must have missed something in this thread. |
At the moment it doesn't look like Michael Meeks is going to continue development of bdirect. Prelink and -hashstyles is just as good of an alternative and more featured in my opinion.
_________________
Viper-Sources Maintainer || nesl247 Projects || vipernicus.org blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vipernicus wrote: | | nowinter wrote: | | nxsty wrote: | | -Bdirect is obsolete |
I thought it is your ebuild, namely 2.17, that makes use of -Bdirect, and the one I actually use (although I also have 2.17.50.0.3). Does what I quoted mean I should make use of -hash-style only perspectively? I must have missed something in this thread. |
At the moment it doesn't look like Michael Meeks is going to continue development of bdirect. Prelink and -hashstyles is just as good of an alternative and more featured in my opinion. |
I was about to post the same thing but then I checked and found that there actually is a new version of the -Bdirect patch for glibc 2.5.  So with some luck it'll work with --hash-style this time. I'll include it in my next update! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vipernicus
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 1462
Location: Your College IT Dept.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nxsty wrote: | | vipernicus wrote: | | nowinter wrote: | | nxsty wrote: | | -Bdirect is obsolete |
I thought it is your ebuild, namely 2.17, that makes use of -Bdirect, and the one I actually use (although I also have 2.17.50.0.3). Does what I quoted mean I should make use of -hash-style only perspectively? I must have missed something in this thread. |
At the moment it doesn't look like Michael Meeks is going to continue development of bdirect. Prelink and -hashstyles is just as good of an alternative and more featured in my opinion. |
I was about to post the same thing but then I checked and found that there actually is a new version of the -Bdirect patch for glibc 2.5. So with some luck it'll work with --hash-style this time. I'll include it in my next update! |
What about bdirect with binutils? Last time I talked to Michael Meeks he said that someone else was porting bdirect and hashvals to newer binutils and glibc, but it wasn't to work with hash-style.
_________________
Viper-Sources Maintainer || nesl247 Projects || vipernicus.org blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
7seven7
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have my system with glibc-2.4-r4 and binutils-2.16.93 from nxsty, compiled with this LDFLAGS "-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--sort-common -Wl,-Bdirect -Wl,-hashvals -Wl,-zdynsort -Wl,--as-needed"
I want to drop LDFLAGS "-Wl,-Bdirect -Wl,-hashvals -Wl,-zdynsort" to start use "-Wl, -hash-style=both", with prelink.
Can i just change the LDFLAGS and upgrade to glibc and binutls that are in portage, or is more complex to do the transition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 7seven7 wrote: | I have my system with glibc-2.4-r4 and binutils-2.16.93 from nxsty, compiled with this LDFLAGS "-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--sort-common -Wl,-Bdirect -Wl,-hashvals -Wl,-zdynsort -Wl,--as-needed"
I want to drop LDFLAGS "-Wl,-Bdirect -Wl,-hashvals -Wl,-zdynsort" to start use "-Wl, -hash-style=both", with prelink.
Can i just change the LDFLAGS and upgrade to glibc and binutls that are in portage, or is more complex to do the transition? |
There is a guide on the gentoo wiki:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Hashstyle#Upgrade_from_old_bdirect.2Fhashvals_to_new_hashstyle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
7seven7
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is the best/recent glibc, the one from portage or from your overlay? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roderick
l33t
Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 908
Location: St. John's, NL CANADA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 7seven7 wrote: |
What is the best/recent glibc, the one from portage or from your overlay? |
Use the latest binutils in portage.
Use the 2.4-r4 glibc in overlay.
Follow the migration guide as listed above.
If you do this, all should work as expected.
You can try 2.5, though I haven't yet, so I cannot comment on any issues or difficulties you may have. At least with the 2.4 path, you can alway update it after to 2.5 if you want. Just remember to quickpkg your old binutils, glibc prior to making this shift. It may help you recover from a disaster.
_________________
If God were a pickle, I'd still say "no pickle on my burger".
http://roderick-greening.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 7seven7 wrote: |
What is the best/recent glibc, the one from portage or from your overlay? |
My glibc 2.5 ebuild isn't much different from the one in portage yet. So either will do. If you want the stable, tested 2.4-r4 you need my overlay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
7seven7
n00b
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With your glibc-2.5 the use flag hashstyle is needed?
EDIT: And prelink, is done by portage or has to be done manual? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 7seven7 wrote: | With your glibc-2.5 the use flag hashstyle is needed?
EDIT: And prelink, is done by portage or has to be done manual? |
No, the --hash-style patches are included in the upstream release so they're always enabled.
It should be done automatically but I usually run it anyway just to be sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I updated my overlay with a new snapshot and the latest -Bdirect patch which now works with glibc 2.5 again! I also removed the hashstyle USE-flag now when both the -Bdirect and --hash-style patches can be applied at the same time (though I don't think they can be used at the same time, please test someone. ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vipernicus
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 1462
Location: Your College IT Dept.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you´ve already built your system with --hash-style then probably not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cruzki
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
i'm try to test if -Bdirect and hash style can co-exists but if I use you binutils-2.17 overlays I have -Bdirect but no -hashstyle an dif I use portage bintutils-2.17.50.5 I have -hashstyle but no -bdirect (I have a C compiler cannot create ejecutable or things like that in both case)
I thing this is because binutils don't have the two patchets at the same time, am I wrong?
PS: sorry for my bad english  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vipernicus
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 1462
Location: Your College IT Dept.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cruzki wrote: | i'm try to test if -Bdirect and hash style can co-exists but if I use you binutils-2.17 overlays I have -Bdirect but no -hashstyle an dif I use portage bintutils-2.17.50.5 I have -hashstyle but no -bdirect (I have a C compiler cannot create ejecutable or things like that in both case)
I thing this is because binutils don't have the two patchets at the same time, am I wrong?
PS: sorry for my bad english |
You need to have a binutils with the bdirect patches. binutils-2.17.50.05 doesn't have them.
_________________
Viper-Sources Maintainer || nesl247 Projects || vipernicus.org blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoKo
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 141
Location: Xanthi, Greece
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nxsty wrote: | | I updated my overlay with a new snapshot and the latest -Bdirect patch which now works with glibc 2.5 again! I also removed the hashstyle USE-flag now when both the -Bdirect and --hash-style patches can be applied at the same time (though I don't think they can be used at the same time, please test someone. ) |
I'm using sys-libs/glibc-2.4.90.20060915.
Now there is sys-libs/glibc-2.5.20061005 from your overlay... In order to update and keep the hash-style patches, I just emerge the new version? Also, should I delete the hashstyle USE-flag for good? Any other change to make on the config files? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JoKo wrote: | | nxsty wrote: | | I updated my overlay with a new snapshot and the latest -Bdirect patch which now works with glibc 2.5 again! I also removed the hashstyle USE-flag now when both the -Bdirect and --hash-style patches can be applied at the same time (though I don't think they can be used at the same time, please test someone. ) |
I'm using sys-libs/glibc-2.4.90.20060915.
Now there is sys-libs/glibc-2.5.20061005 from your overlay... In order to update and keep the hash-style patches, I just emerge the new version? Also, should I delete the hashstyle USE-flag for good? Any other change to make on the config files? |
You can use 2.5 or the 2.5.20061005 snapshot as hash-style is included in the upstream release now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cruzki
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vipernicus wrote: | | cruzki wrote: | i'm try to test if -Bdirect and hash style can co-exists but if I use you binutils-2.17 overlays I have -Bdirect but no -hashstyle an dif I use portage bintutils-2.17.50.5 I have -hashstyle but no -bdirect (I have a C compiler cannot create ejecutable or things like that in both case)
I thing this is because binutils don't have the two patchets at the same time, am I wrong?
PS: sorry for my bad english |
You need to have a binutils with the bdirect patches. binutils-2.17.50.05 doesn't have them. |
The one in the nxsty overlay hasn't it? (binutils-2.17 no 2.17.0.5) O.o |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cruzki wrote: | | vipernicus wrote: | | cruzki wrote: | i'm try to test if -Bdirect and hash style can co-exists but if I use you binutils-2.17 overlays I have -Bdirect but no -hashstyle an dif I use portage bintutils-2.17.50.5 I have -hashstyle but no -bdirect (I have a C compiler cannot create ejecutable or things like that in both case)
I thing this is because binutils don't have the two patchets at the same time, am I wrong?
PS: sorry for my bad english |
You need to have a binutils with the bdirect patches. binutils-2.17.50.05 doesn't have them. |
The one in the nxsty overlay hasn't it? (binutils-2.17 no 2.17.0.5) O.o |
I added an ebuild for binutils 2.17.50.0.5 with a bdirect USE-flag and a regression fix, but I couldn´t get it to build when -Bdirect is enabled. Everbody using binutils 2.17.50.0.5 from portage should use this ebuild instead as the regression is pretty serious (binutils bug #3314) Get it from toolchain_overlay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoKo
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 141
Location: Xanthi, Greece
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nxsty wrote: | | JoKo wrote: | | nxsty wrote: | | I updated my overlay with a new snapshot and the latest -Bdirect patch which now works with glibc 2.5 again! I also removed the hashstyle USE-flag now when both the -Bdirect and --hash-style patches can be applied at the same time (though I don't think they can be used at the same time, please test someone. ) |
I'm using sys-libs/glibc-2.4.90.20060915.
Now there is sys-libs/glibc-2.5.20061005 from your overlay... In order to update and keep the hash-style patches, I just emerge the new version? Also, should I delete the hashstyle USE-flag for good? Any other change to make on the config files? |
You can use 2.5 or the 2.5.20061005 snapshot as hash-style is included in the upstream release now. |
Hash-style is included as an option or is it default? Should I delete hashstyle USE-flag or not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JoKo wrote: | | Hash-style is included as an option or is it default? Should I delete hashstyle USE-flag or not? |
It´s on by default now (for all ebuilds). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R-Type
n00b
Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: | gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd -I. -I. -I/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd -I/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd/../include -W -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -march=athlon64 -mtune=athlon64 -O3 -pipe -c /var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd/bfdsort.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/bfdsort.o
/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd/bfdsort.c:96: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before 'bfd_qsort_closure_func'
/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd/bfdsort.c:97: warning: no previous prototype for 'bfd_qsort'
/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd/bfdsort.c: In function 'bfd_qsort':
/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd/bfdsort.c:128: error: 'cmp' undeclared (first use in this function)
/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd/bfdsort.c:128: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/bfd/bfdsort.c:128: error: for each function it appears in.)
make[4]: *** [bfdsort.lo] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/build/bfd'
make[3]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/binutils-2.17.50.0.5/work/build/bfd'
make[2]: *** [all] Error 2 |
I get this when building the new binutils-2.17.50.0.5 build from your overlay. the bdirect useflag is enabled. This is on amd64. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gergan Penkov
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 1464
Location: das kleinste Kuhdorf Deutschlands :)
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nxsty does this binutils-bug affect only amd64 or is it creating huge executables on all platforms?
_________________
"I knew when an angel whispered into my ear,
You gotta get him away, yeah
Hey little bitch!
Be glad you finally walked away or you may have not lived another day."
Godsmack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weedy
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 247
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
why did we stop filtering flags?
| Code: | i586-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--enable-new-dtags -Wl,--hash-style=both -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,--sort-common -s -shared -static-libgcc -Wl,-O1 -Wl,-z,defs -Wl,-dynamic-linker=/lib/ld-linux.so.2 -B/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/csu/ -Wl,--version-script=/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/libc.map -Wl,-soname=libc.so.6 -Wl,-z,combreloc -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--hash-style=both -nostdlib -nostartfiles -e __libc_main -Wl,-z,now -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/math -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/elf -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/dlfcn -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/nss -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/nis -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/rt -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/resolv -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/crypt -L/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/nptl -Wl,-rpath-link=/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu:/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/math:/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/elf:/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/dlfcn:/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/nss:/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/nis:/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/rt:/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/resolv:/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/crypt:/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/nptl -o /var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/libc.so -T /var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/shlib.lds /var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/csu/abi-note.o /var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/elf/soinit.os /var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/libc_pic.os /var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/elf/sofini.os /var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/elf/interp.os /var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/elf/ld.so /var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/debug/stack_chk_fail_local.oS -lgcc
/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/debug/stack_chk_fail_local.oS: In function `__stack_chk_fail_local':
stack_chk_fail_local.c:(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `__stack_chk_fail_local'
/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/libc_pic.os:(.text+0xd0d20): first defined here
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[1]: *** [/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/build-default-i586-pc-linux-gnu/libc.so] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.5.20061005/work/glibc-2.5'
make: *** [all] Error 2
!!! ERROR: sys-libs/glibc-2.5.20061005 failed.
Call stack:
ebuild.sh, line 1546: Called dyn_compile
ebuild.sh, line 937: Called src_compile
glibc-2.5.20061005.ebuild, line 1045: Called toolchain-glibc_src_compile
glibc-2.5.20061005.ebuild, line 249: Called die
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gergan Penkov wrote: | | nxsty does this binutils-bug affect only amd64 or is it creating huge executables on all platforms? |
I think it´s mainly an amd64 problem but the bug is in the generic code AFAICT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Unsupported Software
