-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Cross glibc retains references to static gcc #35251
Comments
@Ericson2314 Any ideas here? |
Can you give an example of what you mean? What does |
|
Ahhh. I bet this relates to how I had to nuke more refs in make-bootstrap-tools when I combined the native and cross versions. I'm on my phone, so try |
@Ericson2314 Nothing obvious popping out, sorry |
... why does Scrt1.o have path references/strings, anyway? This may be specific to glibc 2.27 and/or gcc 7, which aren't used by other cross configurations... at least on master. |
(this doesn't happen on, say, aarch64-musl, at least that's what I remember from poking at this last night... :)) |
Context for question on Scrt1.o: crt files are small (tiny! they're linked into all the things), usually defining a symbol or two .... for example on musl Scrt1 is a differently built crt1 with source like this: Hardly something you'd expect to retain the path of the compiler it was built with. I wonder if that happens with glib 2.27 on non cross or other archs? |
Doesn't appear to happen on non-cross based on the |
debug info, I'd think. Cross stuff has less stripping sometimes. |
#36948 probably also fixes this? |
I ran into this in #53424 and after some experimentation landed here. I commented out the glibc |
Do we actually need to disable stripping anymore? Tracing back through git blame and the history of the glibc package, it seems like this might have initially been added by c6b5264 in 2009 and was carried through all the updates since then. It wouldn't surprise me if it was no longer necessary, but someone should check if anything breaks. |
There is a reference to cross-arm breakage, but I have no idea if that is still valid or not. |
Thank you for your contributions. This has been automatically marked as stale because it has had no activity for 180 days. If this is still important to you, we ask that you leave a comment below. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". This lets people see that at least one person still cares about this. Someone will have to do this at most twice a year if there is no other activity. Here are suggestions that might help resolve this more quickly:
|
This was fixed by #59787. |
(and through it, the native stdenv)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: