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