Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
This is the mail archive of thelibc-alpha@sourceware.orgmailing list for theglibc project.
Re: [hurd,commited] hurd: fix build with -fstack-protector-strong libmachuser and libhurduser also need stack_chk_fail_local and they do not link against libc_nonshared. * mach/stack_chk_fail_local.c: New file. * hurd/stack_chk_fail_local.c: New file. * mach/Machrules ($(interface-library)-routines): Add stack_chk_fail_local. * mach/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail. * hurd/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail.
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Samuel Thibault <samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:44:56 +0000
- Subject: Re: [hurd,commited] hurd: fix build with -fstack-protector-strong libmachuser and libhurduser also need stack_chk_fail_local and they do not link against libc_nonshared. * mach/stack_chk_fail_local.c: New file. * hurd/stack_chk_fail_local.c: New file. * mach/Machrules ($(interface-library)-routines): Add stack_chk_fail_local. * mach/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail. * hurd/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20170827201245.g5tfjijpxgmgufqz@var.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr>
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017, Samuel Thibault wrote:> +* mach/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail.> +* hurd/Versions (GLIBC_2.4): Add __stack_chk_fail.These changes look suspicious. debug/Versions already exports __stack_chk_fail from libc at version GLIBC_2.4, so I'd expect those new Versions entries to have no effect (meaning they should be removed as useless). And any export added at the symbol version for a past release needs a more detailed justification given, presumably along the lines of "unmodified glibc 2.4 and later releases have not built or worked for Hurd, so the de facto GLIBC_2.4 ABI is determined by the binaries people have actually been using, presumably Debian, which include that symbol at that version (and, hopefully, have done so ever since Debian packages of 2.4)".(The missing semicolon at the end of the new Versions entries is also suspicious; at least, contrary to the syntax normally used in these files.)-- Joseph S. Myersjoseph@codesourcery.com
[8]ページ先頭