Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:38:46 +0300 From: Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@freebsd.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: kan@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org, pjd@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Need a code review Message-ID: <489B08F6.8060605@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86r69buar0.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <20080729.161303.709402272.imp@bsdimp.com> <86r69buar0.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: >> http://people.freebsd.org/~gonzo/mips2/libpam.diff > > This won't work. Your patch unconditionally sets NO_STATIC_MODULES > which will result in a non-functional libpam.a (the modules will be > built into the library, but without any of the glue that allows the > library to find them) not just on mips, but on all other platforms. openpam detects static modules build using cpp(1) condition: #if defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(__PIC__) && !defined(NO_STATIC_MODULES) The problem is that gcc MIPS option -mabi-calls assumes -fpic for both static and dynamic builds. So the question is: would defining NO_STATIC_MODULES for MIPS be enough or it should be addressed upstream? PS NetBSD stumbled upon it too: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sgimips/2008/01/29/msg000058.html -- gonzo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?489B08F6.8060605>