Andy Green wrote:
> On 01/06/11 16:17, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>
> Hi -
>
>> Digging a bit more, it seems that bin-arm/diet segfaults when executed
>> without any parameters, so it seems that this is the bit that
>> miscompiled somewhere.
>
> Did you try running it in gdb and get a clue about what blows?
Not yet, no.
>> It turns out that the problem is actually to do witha GCC bug. When it
>> is building bin-arm/diet with -Ox (x = {s,2,3}) , the resulting binary
>> segfaults. When the binary is built with -O1 or -O0, it works fine.
>
> Is there a particular gcc bug you traced it down to? Because it does
> not follow that all changes to program behaviour with different
> optimization options are necessarily gcc bugs; it can show up
> broken-ness in code that happens to not show symptoms according to how
> it is compiled.
That's fair, but an awful lot seems to break. If dietlibc really is that
broken, I have to question how it ever worked for anyone reliably. I'm
also wondering if it might be some of the Fedora patches that are
breaking it. I'll try it without any post-0.32 patches.
Gordan
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
