I had to revert part of this commit:
commit 0676a754f0508957f289eac5eda01091778cebc2
Author: David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachma...@sifive.com>
Date: Wed Jul 10 16:21:32 2019 +0300
rpmrc: update optflags for riscv64
Match other architectures by adding missing flags:
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection
This is already in Fedora/RISCV for 1+ year.
Signed-off-by: David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachma...@sifive.com>
because GCC generates bad code with -fstack-clash-protection that breaks
signal handling. There's no target backend support for the option, so
-fstack-clash-protection really can't be used at present. Jeff Law as
the original upstream author of -fstack-clash-protection concurs.
There's some disassembly in the bug in case you are interested:
redhat-rpm-config: Disable -fstack-clash-protection on riscv64
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242327>
We'll bring this back to f38 at least. Do we need f37 as well?
I do not know if this is sufficient to get decent valgrind support on
riscv64. I strongly suggest to keep riscv64 out of %valgrind_arches at
least until riscv64 support has been merged upstream.
(Note that this message is an exception, riscv64 is still not covered by
the tools team.)
Thanks,
Florian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
