On 2018 Jan 21 (Sun) at 22:18:21 +0100 (+0100), Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
:On Sun, Jan 21 2018, Peter Hessler <phess...@openbsd.org> wrote:
:> On 2018 Jan 21 (Sun) at 21:45:53 +0100 (+0100), Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
wrote:
:> :On Sun, Jan 21 2018, Brian Callahan <bcal...@devio.us> wrote:
:> :> On 01/21/18 08:13, Peter Hessler wrote:
:> :>> On 2018 Jan 21 (Sun) at 02:06:52 -0500 (-0500), Brian Callahan wrote:
:> :>> :Finally, it looks like libffi needs libc++abi on arm for at least some
:> :>> :functions, as
:> :>> :experienced with lang/snobol4, its configure script didn't pick up
libffi and
:> :>> :instead
:> :>> :complained about this:
:> :>> :/usr/local/lib/libffi.so.1.2: undefined reference to
`__aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr0'
:> :>> :/usr/local/lib/libffi.so.1.2: undefined reference to
`__aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr1'
:> :>> :Those functions are in libc++abi.
:> :>> :
:> :>>
:> :>> Did you mean to include a patch to libffi.pc to address these issues?
:> :>>
:> :>>
:> :>
:> :> Ugh. No more 2am diffs more me.
:> :>
:> :> We just want this to be for arm, of course, to avoid breaking all gcc
:> :> archs. Attached diff deals.
:> :
:> :I think it would be better to link libffi against -lc++abi, inter-libs deps
:> :would be enough and would ensure that consumers don't need to use
:> :pkg-config. static builds would still need the pkg-config goo, but we
:> :don't have static archs any more. Do we have such ports?
:> :
:>
:> iirc, lld doesn't do inter-lib deps so we would still need pkg-config
:> help. while this isn't a problem *yet*, I'd like to avoid it being a
:> problem in the (hopefully near) future.
:
:lld's behavior is a bit more convoluted: say your program links against
:libfoo, and libfoo in turn links against libbar. As long as your
:program only uses symbols from libfoo, you're fine. If the program also
:use symbols from libbar, you must tell lld to link your program against
:libfoo *and* libbar*.
:
:This is not the case here, linking libffi against libc++abi should be
:enough. If a port uses libffi and also needs functions from
:libc++abi/libunwind, it should specify so.
:
:* There's probably a more formal, better wording for the difference in
: behavior between our old ld(1) and lld.
:
Ahh, then I misunderstood some of the details. Thanks for the
explanation!
--
The other day I put instant coffee in my microwave oven ... I almost
went back in time.
-- Steven Wright
