Florian Weimer writes: > * Arsen Arsenović: > >> Some toolchains, such as that used on Gentoo Hardened, set -z now out of >> the box. This trips up a couple of tests. >> --- >> Hi, >> >> This is re-roll of the following patch series: >> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/20230307003222.2810662-1-arsen@aarsen.me/ >> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/20230302112519.914641-1-arsen@gentoo.org/ >> >> Changes from v2: >> - Split off the +$(objpfx)resolvfail.out: $(objpfx)testobj1.so change >> into its own commit. >> >> Changes from v1: >> - Dropped -z norelro. This turned out to be unnecessary after >> Adhemervals removal of --with-default-link and linker script >> machinery: >> https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/glibc/list/?series=17843 >> See: https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/86fsakz5mr.fsf@gentoo.org >> for an explanation of what caused the need for norelro. That fix was >> misguided, due to a previous error on my part, too. >> I applied this patch on top of that patchset and it would appear to >> resolve all related failures. >> The above is not applied to Git yet, but should be before this patch >> is. >> >> elf/Makefile | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) >> elf/Makefile | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > > The patches look okay to me, but would you please resend them with > Signed-off-by: (to mark this as a contribution under DCO)? I had the > FSF records checked, and they don't have a glibc copyright assignment > from you, as far as we can tell. Sorry for the hassle! Yes, I never signed the copyright papers for the libc. I intended to undergo that process, which is why I didn't add signoffs initially (since they'd indicate that I don't intend to sign over copyright when I do), so I figured I should wait for advice. How should I proceed? Thanks in advance. PS: I noticed that I forgot to drop `,nptl' from the subject line. The NPTL bits of this patch are gone now. > > Thanks, > Florian -- Arsen Arsenović