1 |
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 18:57, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: |
2 |
> Hello! |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I have a clean uClibc environment (not gentoo based), and inspired by |
5 |
> hardened-gcc-3.3.2 the gcc specs file was changed to support ET_DYN |
6 |
> binaries, the only change I have done is replacing Scrt1.o with "crt1S.o |
7 |
> interp.o" (crt1S.o not yet in the uClibc tree, but in portage), due to the |
8 |
> fact that Scrt1.o does not exist in uClibc like in glibc-2.3.2. I do not |
9 |
> know what the difference is between Scrt1.o from glibc and crt1S.o coming |
10 |
> from the hardened-gcc-2.4.6 (the version for uClibc is PaX version, so |
11 |
> similar to those in hardened-gcc-2.4.6). |
12 |
> Could someone comment on problems regarding this change? |
13 |
... |
14 |
|
15 |
> I have seen a dependency on binutils-2.14.90.0.7, but this one has some |
16 |
> problems with uClibc (does not correctly support canadian cross-compiling, |
17 |
> binutils-2.14.90.0.6 yes). Is it really needed, or is |
18 |
> binutils-2.14.90.0.6-r7 enough? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I have rebuilt about 50 packages (mainly development environment) with |
21 |
> these changes, but there is some strange behaviour (it is not related |
22 |
> to the fact that everything is -fPIC built, I had this already defined |
23 |
> earlier in my CFLAGS for almost all packages) |
24 |
> I am also interested in an Scrt1.o version for uClibc, so a changes |
25 |
> description between the PaX and the glibc-2.3.2 implementation would be |
26 |
> helpful. |
27 |
|
28 |
<rant> |
29 |
Quick rundown. Sctr1.S is a redhat knock off creation of PaX's ctr1S.S |
30 |
(ie somebody probably got paid to rip it off and claim it was a redhat |
31 |
original creation) they even fscked up the naming convention. I wont go |
32 |
to much in detail because I would end up ranting for hours. In short |
33 |
Scrt1 the way it gets built by redhat will most likely end up with text |
34 |
relocations from what I understand so the PaX crt1S.S should be used and |
35 |
preferred till such time as redhat finds a way to break that for us. |
36 |
</rant> |
37 |
|
38 |
> Why was the default -fomit-frame-pointer option removed? From my |
39 |
> experience there are only a few packages, that are incompatible with it |
40 |
> (mainly libraries). |
41 |
|
42 |
You would have to ask the maintainer pappy@g.o about why this |
43 |
functionality was removed. However I can say from my personal testing we |
44 |
truly don't seem to gain any performance by trying to gain back an extra |
45 |
register from adding -fomit-frame-pointer when -fPIC steals away the ebx |
46 |
register, in fact I even get roughly exactly same number of instructions |
47 |
that get executed when using those flags together. Attached is a file I |
48 |
did this testing with. |
49 |
|
50 |
-- |
51 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
52 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |