#28716: Create a mingw-w64-clang project -------------------------------------------------+------------------------- Reporter: gk | Owner: tbb- | team Type: task | Status: | needs_review Priority: High | Milestone: Component: Applications/Tor Browser | Version: Severity: Normal | Resolution: Keywords: tbb-rbm, TorBrowserTeam201902R, | Actual Points: GeorgKoppen201902 | Parent ID: #28238 | Points: Reviewer: | Sponsor: -------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Comment (by cypherpunks): Replying to [comment:37 gk]: > Replying to [comment:36 cypherpunks]: > > Replying to [comment:35 gk]: > > > Replying to [comment:34 cypherpunks]: > > > > Replying to [comment:33 gk]: > > [snip] Seems you're burying in it: llvm in mingw-w64-clang, mingw-w64 in mingw-w64-source, LLVM in llvm, mingw-w64-gcc in mingw-w64... [snip] > > > > > lld patch for optionally dealing with PE header timestamp issues (by zeroing them out similar to ld's -Wl,--no-insert-timestamp). I'll try to get that one upstreamed. > > > > Could you also try to get upstreamed that: > > > > {{{ > > > > - if (Args.getLastArgValue(OPT_m) != "thumb2pe" && > > > > - Args.getLastArgValue(OPT_m) != "arm64pe" && !Args.hasArg(OPT_dynamicbase)) > > > > - Add("-dynamicbase:no"); > > > > }}} > > > > because it's a shame in 2019. > > > > > > We make that explicit by passing on `-Wl,--dynamicbase`, which seems sufficient to me without extra work and discussion. > > From which try? And how many other flags are missing/improperly passed? Silently, without discussion, yeah. > > What do you mean with "from which try"? Tries on Try. > See the patch that landed on esr60 and enabled that for mingw-w64/clang (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1520308). Yes, there is mentioning about that it's not an optional hardening. Unaddressed. > I you feel we are missing flags compared to what we currently have and what we should have, please file tickets here in case they are not filed yet. Filed more than a year ago. Unaddressed. > > > > > I played a bit with bumping the llvm revision to r351992 in order to get a proper `llvm-strip` and `llvm-objcopy` but run into a bunch of issues which made me pause for now (see: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1471698 for context). > > > > Why not use 8.x branch as Mozilla? > > > > > > We do, but the idea was to have proper fixes for `llvm-strip` and `llvm-objcopy` included instead of the hacks/workarounds we and Mozilla have currently in place instead. > > No, you don't, but LLVM seems is not going to merge those fixes into 8.x :( There is an idea to bump LLVM to rc2 (if you wish), but build `llvm-strip` and `llvm-objcopy` separately from trunk. > > Yes, we *do* use the same revision as Mozilla on esr60: r348363. It's not Mozilla official. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1512921 for the reason. > We could build those things separately but I am not convinced yet that this is worth the effort and the extra complication and potential instability. So, building binutils now and in LLVM to create wrappers is fine for you, but building standalone llvm (not LLVM) to get those two utils is somewhat different? -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28716#comment:38> Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/> The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________ tor-bugs mailing list tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs