Hi Dmitry, On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 01:02:28PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > Thanks. This patch was indeed one reason I kept postponing the release, > > because I didn't have have time to properly review it. > > > > Which gcc versions have you tried this against (with/without -flto?) > > I tested with gcc10 and gcc11. > I could try older versions, although I didn't feel that necessary.
I also did try with gcc 4.8 and gcc 8 (both without lto though). > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27367 will likely strike > those who would build elfutils with -flto using gcc11+. But only if they use -ffat-lto-objects (which isn't the default)? Did you see and try the patch I proposed? Do you think we should include it? I would like someone else to check/try it. > > does also impact symbol versioning for non-lto builds, so I am still a > > little hesitant. I'll try to do some tests to make sure things look ok > > with different gcc versions. > > What do you mean by "it does also impact symbol versioning for non-lto > builds"? The code for non-lto builds changes, but the versioning > should remain the same, shouldn't it? I meant I am paranoid :) We are using slightly different asm or an attribute to mark the symbol version than we did before. But I double checked the exported versioned symbols with and without this patch on different gcc versions and they look fine. So I did just now push this patch. Cheers, Mark
