Hi, I have a question about sysroot and fixincludes.
On Android there are different API levels (like android-9, android-10
etc) that match different versions of OS. Gcc from NDK is configured
using sysroot for android-9 and the convenient way for compiling for,
say, android-19 was by providing the
Hi,
When compiling a shared library with "-mandroid -shared" the option
-Bsymbolic for linker is turned on by default. What was the reason
behind that default? Isn't using of -Bsymbolic somehow dangerous and
should be avoided..? (as e.g. is explained in the mail from Richard
Henderson http://gcc.
must somehow let the user know about that (btw linux dynamic
loader silently allows copy against DT_SYMBOLIC).
thanks,
Alexander
2013/4/3 Andrew Haley :
> On 03/29/2013 06:55 PM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>
>> When compiling a shared library with "-mandroid -shared" the
Thank you very much for clarification.
>> > Having that in mind, we have:
>> > 1) All shared libraries for Android are built with -Bsymbolic
>> > 2) Dynamic loader throws an error if we are doing COPY relocation
>> > against DT_SYMBOLIC libs.
>> >
>> > So any COPY relocation is doomed to failure..
Hi,
In gcc/cp/mangle.c (write_unscoped_name) we have:
/* If not, it should be either in the global namespace, or directly
in a local function scope. */
gcc_assert (context == global_namespace
|| context != NULL
|| TREE_CODE (context) == FU
2013/7/29 Andreas Schwab :
> Alexander Ivchenko writes:
>
>> BTW: First the check was "|| context == NULL", then it was removed by
>> r149964 and then came back as "|| context != NULL" by r153768.
>
> Looks like r153734 got it wrong first. It was sup
a/gcc/ChangeLog b/gcc/ChangeLog
index 56e6fd4..6bb18f8 100644
--- a/gcc/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2013-08-20 Alexander Ivchenko
+
+ * config/linux-android.c (linux_android_libc_has_function): Fix
+ checks for libc.
+
2013-08-20 Zhouyi Zhou
* tree-ssa
Hi, I have a little question
Right now internally in gcc we flexibly check whether a particular
function (or rather "function class", which could be easily extended)
is present or not in libc by calling target hook "libc_has_function",
however in the testsuite for c99 runtime we still check whethe
Hi,
When I compile the following code (modified version of
g++.dg/cpp0x/bad_array_new1.C without try/catch):
// { dg-options -std=c++11 }
// { dg-do run }
#include
void * f(int i)
{
return new int[i];
}
int main()
{
f(-1);
}
with -fno-exceptions option, I still get the call to
__cxa_
*ping*
thanks,
Alexander
2013/9/23 Alexander Ivchenko :
> Hi,
>
> When I compile the following code (modified version of
> g++.dg/cpp0x/bad_array_new1.C without try/catch):
>
> // { dg-options -std=c++11 }
> // { dg-do run }
>
> #include
>
> void *
2013/11/27 Jeff Law :
> On 11/26/13 19:50, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2013-11-26 04:26:57 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Build log at
>>> http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id=39052
>>>
>>> g++ -c -DUSE_LIBUNWIND_EXCEPTIONS -g -O2 -DIN_GCC
>>> -DC
Is it ok to port this patch to 4.9 branch:
commit 15bee5d49b1c746fd3e784432d7e4988941a671e
Author: bviyer
Date: Fri Apr 11 19:56:42 2014 +
Fix for PR other/60644.
+2014-04-11 Barry Tannenbaum
+
+ PR other/60644
+ * runtime/os-unix.c: Replaced all occurran
k with fixing it in trunk later as
well, depending on your decision.
2014-04-17 15:31 GMT+04:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 02:47:50PM +0400, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>> Is it ok to port this patch to 4.9 branch:
>
> If it always fails to bootstrap with cilkrts on Andr
By default in Android we always compile with -fpic or -fPIC, even when
compiling executable. Because of that we have some test fails on
Android:
For example:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr47312.c
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-options "-O2" } */
void exit (int);
void noreturn_autodetection_failed
built
with -fPIC now. What do you think?
2012/11/15 H.J. Lu :
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Alexander Ivchenko
> wrote:
>> By default in Android we always compile with -fpic or -fPIC, even when
>> compiling executable. Because of that we have some test fails on
>> A
e -fpic default? I'm not
quite sure which one is better for Android; -fPIE will
give us all the security advantages of the position independent code
and probably is a better option.
2012/11/16 Maxim Kuvyrkov :
> On 15/11/2012, at 10:39 PM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
>
>>>> The can
r head in the sand.
Considering all that, I believe that we are left with only one
solution: to carefully add "-fno-pic" or
"{ target nonpic }" to the affected tests as we discussed above.
Thank you very much for your help!
2012/11/18 Maxim Kuvyrkov :
> On 18/11/2012, at 7
17 matches
Mail list logo
