Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:36:34 +0300 From: Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@freebsd.org> To: Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@freebsd.org> Cc: kan@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, pjd@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Need a code review Message-ID: <489B32A2.1090302@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <489B08F6.8060605@freebsd.org> References: <20080729.161303.709402272.imp@bsdimp.com> <86r69buar0.fsf@ds4.des.no> <489B08F6.8060605@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oleksandr Tymoshenko wrote: > 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? And diff in question is *completely* wrong. NO_STATIC_MODULES should be added to flags when compiling objects for shlib, not to PICFLAGS Actual "fix" passed unnoticed by me in contrib/openpam, sorry for misguiding. -- gonzo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?489B32A2.1090302>