From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id CE91A3858C60; Tue,  2 Nov 2021 12:47:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CE91A3858C60
From: "adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org"
 <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug libc/28499] Couldn't export variable to sub process
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 12:47:16 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libc
X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.32
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical
X-Bugzilla-Who: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: NOTABUG
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-28499-131-fMiicJaFhV@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-28499-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-28499-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Glibc-bugs mailing list <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/glibc-bugs>,
 <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/glibc-bugs/>
List-Help: <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/glibc-bugs>,
 <mailto:glibc-bugs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 12:47:16 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28499

Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |NOTABUG

--- Comment #7 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot or=
g> ---
The initfini support is assumed while building glibc because it has been
support for a *long* time (since glibc 2.1/binutils 2.12).  What you might =
be
seeing is just only recently gcc enables it as default for cross-compiling
(13a39886940331149173b25d6ebde0850668d8b9).

We do had a test for initfini support, but it was removed on glibc 2.23
(a9224562cbe9cfb0bd8d9e637a06141141f9e6e3) with the same justification is h=
as
been supported for a long time and assumed as default.

In any case, this is not an issue with glibc.  You might want to bring this=
 on
libc-alpha to maybe reinstate the initfini configure check as a fail-safe, =
but
I think the best option is to enable initfini support directly on configure.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=