From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25099 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2006 23:56:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 25088 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Apr 2006 23:56:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ns.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:56:31 +0000 Received: from Relay2.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA840EE5C; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:56:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Andi Kleen To: "H. J. Lu" Subject: Re: [discuss] RE: [PATCH] [1/2] x86_64: Pass -32 to the assembler when compiling the 32bit vsyscall pages Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:33:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: discuss@x86-64.org, "Baker, Brian (ISS - Houston)" , torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, "Altobelli, David" , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <6095103C4F0ACD4FAE3522E0F27ADF42022CEE33@cceexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> <200604220025.53501.ak@suse.de> <20060421233244.GA16692@lucon.org> In-Reply-To: <20060421233244.GA16692@lucon.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604220156.22114.ak@suse.de> Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00316.txt.bz2 On Saturday 22 April 2006 01:32, H. J. Lu wrote: > > You have to recompile the file and either run the pthreads > > cancellation test case with the right glibc version, or examine > > the unwind tables in the .so by hand. Or just check if the warning > > appears or not. > > There is no need to do that. If you believe the problem is due to > binutils 2.16.91.0.5, it is a binutils bug. Please open a bug report > at I'm not sure - it is reasonable for binutils to expect --32 to be passed And the linker did warn about it after all - just I made the mistake of ignoring it before. The only reason I mentioned binutils is that it didn't happen with older binutils/gcc releases. > > http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ > > and assign it to me. I need the preprocessed .s file, the expected .o > file and the expected .so file with procedures to reproduce the > difference. Since they are assembly codes, I will expect -m32 and > -m32 -Wa,-32 should generate the same output. I don't have time to extract a test case out of this right now, sorry. I guess you could though. > > > > > > with binutils 2.16.91.0.5. Unless you have a bad > > > gcc driver, -m32 will pass --32 to assembler, which is the same as -32. > > > > It definitely fixed the problem here and the warning went away. > > gcc used was 4.1 > > > > But you're right it could have been the gcc - in the case where it worked > > I was using gcc 4.0. > > > > Since they are assembly codes, it sounds like a gcc driver issue to me. Might be. The way the assembly is built is a bit funky because it's a shared library. -Andi