On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 19:46, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2003, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:31, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > > There are problems building some of the binaries with propolice enabled
> > > gcc, mainly the .hidden support in binutils has to be "hidden" from gcc,
> > > but as I can see (read), the glibc version does not work flawlessly
> > > either.
> > >
> > Have you successfully used ssp with uclibc?
> It worked (somehow, not quite correct, and some packages where not
> rebuildable) at the time where uClibc had support for LIBGCC_FUNCTIONS
> (adding functions from libgcc to libc) This was the only way I got a
> system running it (__guard and __smash... where added to libc). Since then
> I cannot modify buildroot so that I get a system running, segfaults on all
> the line (tested only with gcc-3.3.x and protector 3.3-5). I think the
> solution would be to add the needed functions to uClibc (and remove them
> from libgcc!!!).
One of the hardened-gcc version introduced guard symbols to libgcc.a.
I'm pretty sure this no longer should be the case if your running ~arch
as they are in fact getting introduced into glibc.
If you care to hack the functionaly into uClibc I'll point you at the
glibc version from etoh http://dev.gentoo.org/~solar/ssp/guard.c
> > > 1. UPX works too (I have built 1.91-cvs), the compression is not so good,
> > > as with prebuilt binaries (NRV is not free), but works also on kernel
> > > images (bzImage)
> > Would this have a big advantage over say cramfs support? I would assume
> > that most compressed file systems or executable packers also tend to use
> > more memory on access whihc could lead to an ever slower system.
> UPX developer says, that the uncompression does not cost much, didn't
> really tested it. I do not have cramfs experience.
> > > 3. The uClibc toolchain is not uptodate, but the buildroot is already used
> > > by the developers themselves to create development images, so the infos on
> > > cross-building are there and tested already.
> > Please take a look at the 0.9.22 ebuild in portage. The wrappers for
> > gcc,c++,ld,ldd,ar,etc are all missing and I don't know why. I've checked
> > the detail/changelogs on the uclibc.org site and see no mention of this
> > what so ever.
> The wrappers are for ever gone. Use the procedure from buildroot (the
> toolchain building from here).
Ned Ludd <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Gentoo Linux Developer