On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:53:45AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > > So if __fpscr_values was the only reason for patch 1/3 in the FDPIC > > > > patchset, I think we can safely drop it. And patch 2/3 was already > > > > committed, so 3/3, the one I was originally looking at, seems to be > > > > all we need. It was approved at the time, so I'll proceed with merging > > > > it with 5.2.0. > > > > > > Well, obviously if trying dropping patch 1/3 you need to remove > > > everything > > > related to use_initial_val (the feature added in patch 1/3) from patch > > > 3/3. > > > > As far as I can tell, the only "use" of use_initial_val is defining > > the pseudo-instruction in the md file, which causes the code in patch > > 1/3 to use it. I see no other references to it. As I understand, the > > breakage from not having it (in the original 4.5-era patch) would be > > when introducing references to __fpscr_values later, and no longer > > having the GOT pointer, but that code is gone now. > > I have this basically working -- obviously no heavy testing yet, and > the specs glue is not sufficient to make it practical for others to > try it yet, so it'll be a little longer til I have something to post.
I'm running into a problem with crtstuff.c: the references to __TMC_END__, etc. end up using @GOTOFF relocations which the linker then rejects. Is this a linker bug or something I need to fix in the target code to avoid generating @GOTOFF relocations? Since crtbegin.o has no information about what section __TMC_END__ will be in when it's defined, I don't see a lot of options except to avoid using @GOTOFF entirely for symbols that aren't defined in the same TU. Rich
