[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#492488: Reproduction of the Iceweasel crashes.

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 07:48:24PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 08:09:29AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >>Note that we *do* use --no-relax on xulrunner-1.9, but in the CFLAGS.
> >>Without it, libxul.so won't build at all ; the same applies to webkit,
> >>BTW.
> Interesting.  I thought --no-relax is a linker, not a compiler, option.

It *is* a linker option, but you can pass it in CFLAGS as
"-Wl,--no-relax", where the "-Wl" part marks what follows as an argument
for "ld".  Note that if a particular option isn't recognized by the
compiler, it's automatically passed to "ld".  The "-Wl" simply makes
that behavior explicit (just in case a particular option might be
understood by the compiler and therefore not passed to the linker).

> >I could reproduce the crash on alpha and spotted it to be caused by
> >apparently bad g++ optimization on alpha. Adding:
> >in xulrunner's toolkit/components/url-classifier/src/Makefile.in makes
> >iceweasel work properly on albeniz.debian.org.
> Yes, Bob (compiling firefox) and I (compiling icecat) found that turning 
> off optimisation (for the complete build) resulted in an executable that 
> works.  I wonder if -O1 might work okay?

Depending on what kinds of optimizations are performed at a given level,
it's possible that -O1 would work.  Eventually, someone will probably
try it to narrow down where to look for the broken code.  Regardless of
the outcome, it's probably a useful exercise.  However, tracking down
optimizer bugs is not my idea of fun...

Bob Tracy          |  "I was a beta tester for dirt.  They never did
rct@frus.com       |   get all the bugs out." - Steve McGrew on /.

Reply to: