On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 09:35 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > On 9/28/12 9:02 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 08:57 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > >> On 9/28/12 4:52 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 15:40 +0300, Andrei Dinu wrote: > >>>> On 09/24/2012 02:30 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 14:26 +0300, Andrei Dinu wrote: > >>>>>> +- *reloc_addr += sym->st_value; > >>>>>> ++ *reloc_addr = sym->st_value; > >>>>> That patch looks slightly dubious to me. Are you sure this doesn't > >>>>> introduce any regressions elsewhere? > >>>>> > >>>> I have insufficient data to affirm that it doesn't introduces > >>>> regressions. > >>> > >>> Presumably it does at least pass the eglibc and binutils testsuites, > >>> right? > >> > >> That patch is a workaround for an ARM issue related to thread local > >> storage and > >> TLS offsets during runtime and prelinking. > > > > Right, I understand that. But this doesn't really answer the question > > "does the workaround break anything else?". > > In my testing no. But I never integrated it with OE, so I never ran the test > suite Khem was referring to.
I think the testsuite Khem mentioned is just eglibc's builtin tests; it isn't actually specific to OE. What did your testing consist of? p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core