Re: [PATCH] claim ifunc support on several NetBSD architectures

2019-04-29 Thread Jeff Law
On 4/7/19 7:31 AM, co...@sdf.org wrote: > architecture list from netbsd src/tests/libexec/ld.elf_so/t_ifunc.c > (quick reference: > https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/tests/libexec/ld.elf_so/t_ifunc.c#L38 > ) > tested on netbsd/amd64. > > ifuncs worked anyway, but I can't use target_clones

Re: [PATCH] claim ifunc support on several NetBSD architectures

2019-04-09 Thread Jeff Law
On 4/7/19 7:31 AM, co...@sdf.org wrote: > architecture list from netbsd src/tests/libexec/ld.elf_so/t_ifunc.c > (quick reference: > https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/tests/libexec/ld.elf_so/t_ifunc.c#L38 > ) > tested on netbsd/amd64. > > ifuncs worked anyway, but I can't use target_clones

Re: [PATCH] claim ifunc support on several NetBSD architectures

2019-04-08 Thread coypu
Small addition for ARM. Since it doesn't have a geneirc way to detect CPU features the code in libatomic relies on a linux-specific behaviour, the ifunc condition is only defined for linux. To unbreak compilation, I'd like to exclude netbsd/arm from the libatomic ifunc camp :) libatomic/ChangeLog

[PATCH] claim ifunc support on several NetBSD architectures

2019-04-07 Thread coypu
architecture list from netbsd src/tests/libexec/ld.elf_so/t_ifunc.c (quick reference: https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/tests/libexec/ld.elf_so/t_ifunc.c#L38 ) tested on netbsd/amd64. ifuncs worked anyway, but I can't use target_clones without this change. that is one very cool feature I'd