On 04-14 21:09, Michael Cree wrote: > On 04/04/11 05:25, Matt Turner wrote: > >This is partly due to the fact that I hate trying to submit things to > >glibc. Also that I don't have any time right now. But mostly because I > >hate glibc development. > > So, is there someone in this new Alpha porting team that can help > Matt with upstream support on the Alpha port of glibc? > > I am baulking at it as I am thinking about putting some effort into > binutils, particularly ld, and see if I can fix the relax code path > of the linker. I suspect that will have quite a nice flow-on effect > of fixing quite a few problems with plugins and the linking of large > C++ programs. As You know, I already tries to help (testing, bisecting, minimising) in this case. Unfortunetly I always have problem with understating how the whole dynamic linking works under linux. I like digging more into assembly and compiler alone, without linker magic. The patch you posted to the binutils' bugzilla [1] solves a proble in tls relax case, but I have no idea, if this is correct solution and will not introduce any regressions. Probably only Richard Henderson can tell. :) [1] http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12608#c13 -- Witold Baryluk JID: witold.baryluk // jabster.pl
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature