On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andrew Hsieh <andrewhs...@google.com> wrote:
> What about overloading the existing option -mbionic ? -mbionic=21 and
> above enable ifunc (so NDK can help enforce it)
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:51 AM, enh <e...@google.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/14 10:46, enh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This feels like a bad idea to me simply because a new compiler with an
>>>> old runtime will generate code that fails, right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yes, but that's already true of PIE or gnu-style hash or...
>>>
>>> That doesn't make it the right thing to do. I would argue that's a bug that
>>> really needs to be fixed.
>>
>> it's not a bug. no one wants 22 different compilers or configuration
>> options, with a new one every six months or so.
>>
>>>> If you can't do a configure-time test, then the way to go is either a
>>>> compile-time option, or to use a different target. If there's some
>>>> minimum version of android that has this capability, then this isn't
>>>> terribly hard. You may not even need a config file for this since
>>>> you
>>>> could define LIBC_BIONIC_USE_IFUNCS or something like that when
>>>> configured for a suitably new android version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> this won't make any difference to the developers, though. they get their
>>>> prebuilt compilers from us, and we'll just turn all the latest options
>>>> on. we don't ship a compilers for each Android version. we already have
>>>> 6 architectures * {clang,gcc} * {current,previous}version to ship.
>>>
>>> But that's no reason to have a compiler which produces bogus binaries.
>>>
>>> I really think this patch is a bad idea.
>>
>> so we should just change linux_has_ifunc_p to return
>> HAVE_GNU_INDIRECT_FUNCTION; instead?
>
I don't know exactly what kind problem you are trying to solve. Why don't
you configure GCC with --enable-gnu-indirect-function? If it doesn't work
for your purpose, please tell me exactly what you want to to do and I will
find a solution for you.
--
H.J.
