From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 547F3389245E; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:18:59 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 547F3389245E From: "wilde@sha-bang.de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug jit/100096] libgccjit.so.0: Cannot write-enable text segment: Permission denied on NetBSD 9.1 Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:18:59 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: jit X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: wilde@sha-bang.de X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:18:59 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100096 --- Comment #21 from wilde@sha-bang.de --- "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100096 > > --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Created attachment 50614 > --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D50614&action=3Dedit > gcc11-pr100096.patch > > Thanks. So, from your readelf -wi dump it seems it is only libintl.a that > doesn't have --enable-host-shared support. > > So, can you please test this patch and see if all libgccjit.so* text > relocations are gone with that? I will test the patch, given the hardware this will take some time (I'll consider setting up a vm on a faster hardware). The patch needs to be applied to gcc11, right? If it were usable with 10.2.0 I could apply it to my existing build, which of course would be much faster to rebuild...=