From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-93445-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 35005 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2018 10:35:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 34735 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jun 2018 10:35:19 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:730
X-HELO: mail-yw0-f174.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to:cc;
        bh=4hcFtY7O6tO5rk260NYN4SDmuh2/QqNMytVZe/CMdFE=;
        b=tAEvJ3k55Kaa7QC0axehS0WbA0idkxVd2PcSYXFWwDp7tG3VxtyC7h2YcAIVoxw4tL
         ZP3Ct4LcEcg8OctMrQonGhjENLfgLaOzfequnPZGpJSIQi5HalDao2UePZQ18tec906D
         uU6PoaMl8MKK69jnQDBYH8i2EDWGBsRifpALBdd8E2xlLgGZBMt8Kx9fnDDitmvjnpwv
         s/mXvfXaizLLD7b02h3jNopFinpE8tTywFOj5tR/rEYrm2a6ZW1OfPCqyr90i3UOh6BU
         5/55L03hqo8nlJ1CQVsHIzxQuux6P4TYFwZyn6b6rq8ltoqDYNYg4wyZa93okE+hYtF8
         Cdtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3RddL5Iag1K6TR4ix0F+vavIm29RHzwCzXyXr3bBQVXGPJQiP5
	4ipvyil4mxuMhhRI7JDvR574mBJI18eRaKfSwPhA2w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKSrQUxk4tt3HsNk5JfVAkvU3XheSosw0kg06dPv0GQohwYjwlwfqcsA+QQ9cUN+DOJM7o4rVv99GuUVdIfNDE=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:b283:: with SMTP id q125-v6mr9866095ywh.414.1529490916822;
 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 03:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOoXbkKyOVCVL3zA7rm5jAOx+E1BL2G6wx1F2g-7ac1Tug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f3ddf6f8-0e4e-df25-2758-826321fb4623@linaro.org> <CAMe9rOoXbkKyOVCVL3zA7rm5jAOx+E1BL2G6wx1F2g-7ac1Tug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAHegJiJnmwqjBocN_caOxtn9-gBL3Aib6qS8vmE1bssUUDcubQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why GLIBC requires compiler optimizations to build
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>, 
	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00599.txt.bz2

On 11 June 2018 at 22:48, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
> > It has been some time since I tried to build glibc without optimization
> > as an exercise and I can't really recall what exactly has prevented me
> > to accomplish it.  So the question is if it is make sense to add such
> > requirement and if it is the case whether it would be a useful options
> > and what prevents us to do so?
>
> The main issue is to bootstrap ld.so to prevent dynamic relocations
> before it is ready.

Is it only really elf/rtld.c that specifically requires optimization then?

Thanks,
Gary