open_issues/glibc: t/init-first.c.

2 files changed, 7 insertions, 87 deletions

diff --git a/open_issues/glibc.mdwn b/open_issues/glibc.mdwn
index be262261..e48dde9c 100644
--- a/open_issues/glibc.mdwn
+++ b/open_issues/glibc.mdwn
@@ -40,12 +40,12 @@ Last reviewed up to the [[Git mirror's 187da0aedcd9d0a2fb34477bef41549681ba1273
         `t/dup3`: hidden def.  ed690b2f24bbc4d9c541fc81a7c67e6dc5678a96 -- why
         not for dup3, too?  Because it is a syscall (that is always inlined)?
 
-  * t/init-first.c
+  * `t/init-first.c`
 
-    Have to revert 53b56b1101fc9bb4f295f23f54e7e19f8da8da16 to keep it working
-    with GCC 4.4.  Figure out what's going on.  Also see [[glibc_init_first]].
-
-    There is a `RETURN_ADDRESS` macro in glibc.
+    Follow up here: [[!message-id "20070722171859.GN25744@fencepost.gnu.org"]]
+    or [[!message-id "87mxe4kwws.fsf@gnu.org"]].  Close [[!GNU_Savannah_bug
+    17647]].  Debian: [[!message-id "E1Qup1U-0006Zc-39@vasks.debian.org"]]
+    (part of Ludo's patch; the part that is not harmful to GCC 4.4).
 
   * `t/kernel-features.h_includes`
 
@@ -192,8 +192,6 @@ Last reviewed up to the [[Git mirror's 187da0aedcd9d0a2fb34477bef41549681ba1273
         Need changes equivalent to c55fbd1ea768f9fdef34a01377702c0d72cbc213 +
         14d96785125abee5e9a49a1c3037f35a581750bd.
 
-  * Building with GCC 4.5, 4.6, trunk will cause different kinds of faults.
-
   * Create `t/cleanup_kernel-features.h`.
 
   * Add tests from Linux kernel commit messages for `t/dup3` et al.
@@ -371,7 +369,7 @@ Last reviewed up to the [[Git mirror's 187da0aedcd9d0a2fb34477bef41549681ba1273
 # Build
 
 Here's a log of a glibc build run; this is from our [[Git repository's
-8cb1875ef1e3211ec133d8eea328dbe59538c2a7 (2011-10-11)
+0abded0927c62f02399658395837917548d5e281 (2011-10-14)
 sources|source_repositories/glibc]], run on coulomb.SCHWINGE.
 
     $ export LC_ALL=C
@@ -383,7 +381,7 @@ sources|source_repositories/glibc]], run on coulomb.SCHWINGE.
 This takes up around 400 MiB and needs roughly 120 min on coulomb.SCHWINGE.
 
 <!--
-    $ (make install_root=/INVALID && touch .go-check) 2>&1 | tee log_build_ && test -f .go-check && make -k install_root=/INVALID check 2>&1 | tee log_check
+    $ (make install_root=/INVALID && touch .go-check) 2>&1 | tee log_build_ && test -f .go-check && make -k install_root=/INVALID check TIMEOUTFACTOR=100 2>&1 | tee log_check
     $ find ./ -name \*.o -o -name \*.os -o -name \*.oS | while read f; do ~/tmp/gcc/git/contrib/compare-debug --preserve ../Roger_Whittaker.build-gcc-4.4-486.O/"$f" "$f"; done 2>&1 | less 
     $ while read f; do (readelf -a "$f" && objdump -xDrtw "$f") > N && (cd ../Roger_Whittaker.build-gcc-4.4-486.O/ && readelf -a "$f" && objdump -xDrtw "$f") > O && diff -u O N | less; done
     $ find ./ -name \*.o -o -name \*.os -o -name \*.oS | while read f; do readelf -h "$f" | grep OS/ABI | (read a b && [ x"$b" != x'UNIX - System V' ] && echo "### $f: $b"); done
diff --git a/open_issues/glibc_init_first.mdwn b/open_issues/glibc_init_first.mdwn
deleted file mode 100644
index 774b7828..00000000
--- a/open_issues/glibc_init_first.mdwn
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,78 +0,0 @@
-[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
-
-[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
-id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
-document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
-any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
-Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
-is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
-License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
-
-[[!tag open_issue_glibc]]
-
-IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-07-22
-
-    [additional init-first.c patch]
-    < tschwinge> civodul: The only thing I wonder about: Roland also once had
-      done similar changes, which I then found they didn'T work with GCC 4.1,
-      and backed them out in 08f53ee9d265ffdc7e0affd6acf346cceeb65559 and fixed
-      the issue differently in d8d27e633a7860b37fd2e3142822b640a066cc0f (and
-      e17cef66140d4c97710ea88bd8d12612799e1e0f).  Have you reviewed this?
-    < tschwinge> That's in the Savannah glibc repository.
-    < tschwinge> And this has been in 2007, four years ago.  I don't remember
-      all the details.
-    < tschwinge> And here is quite a good summary of this stuff, from
-      init-first.c:
-    < tschwinge> /* XXX This is all a crock and I am not happy with it.
-    < tschwinge>    This poorly-named function is called by static-start.S,
-    < civodul> braunr: thanks; i must admit it took me a while to figure it out
-      ;-)
-    < tschwinge>    which should not exist at all.  */
-    < tschwinge> civodul: I can imagine...  :-/
-    < civodul> tschwinge: re Roland's changes, that's weird; i plan to try to
-      reinstate his change and see if it works
-    < civodul> now, i won't test with GCC 4.1...
-    < tschwinge> Yeah...
-    < tschwinge> I'm happy if it works with 4.4 onwards.
-    < tschwinge> civodul: And it's safe (in GCC terms) to write to ``* ((void
-      **) __builtin_frame_address (0) + 1)'', and similar?
-    < tschwinge> Or should we be coding this few stuff in assembly?
-    < civodul> tschwinge: well, we should add a compile-time assertion for
-      __builtin_return_address (0) == *((void**)__builtin_frame_address (0) +
-      1)
-    < civodul> (i think GCC can figure it out at compile-time)
-    < civodul> but on IA32 it should always be true
-    < civodul> what's the name of glibc's compile-time assert macro already?
-    < tschwinge> I wonder whether that might interfere with some of GCC's
-      optimizations?
-    < civodul> what?
-    < tschwinge> Well, it seems unclean for me to be modifying a function's
-      return address from within C code.
-    < tschwinge> civodul: I added a verify.h in the t/verify.h branch.  But
-      people didn't really like it too much.  They rather wanted to directly
-      inline the array[(cond)?1:-1] code.
-    < civodul> ok
-    < civodul> i remember a debate about Gnulib's verify.h
-    < civodul> i thought something comparable had landed eventually
-    < tschwinge> civodul: Oh, maybe I missed it.
-    < tschwinge> civodul: In init-first.c:init, what about the usage of
-      data[-1] in the else path (not using cthreads) -- is that good as-is?
-    < civodul> tschwinge: oooh, it probably needs to fixed too
-    < civodul> but i haven't reached that point yet ;-)
-     * civodul tries to cross-bootstrap GNU from scratch
-    < tschwinge> civodul: I'd be happy to learn what was wrong with Roland's
-      original idea of fixing this.  Or perhaps this was a GCC 4.1 bug?  Or
-      perhaps GCC was inlining to much, and then got confused with frames and
-      return addresses?
-    < civodul> tschwinge: Roland's change looks good to me, so it could have
-      been a GCC bug
-    < civodul> tschwinge: OK to commit the patch to t/init-first.c (with both
-      data[-1] replaced)?
-    < tschwinge> civodul: OK, if you are confident that it works with GCC 4.4
-      onwards.  If yes, please add your changelog snippet to .topmsg, and also
-      add a not that Roland's original code may in fact have been fine, and we
-      may have hit a compiler bug.
-    < civodul> tschwinge: OK, will do
-    < civodul> tschwinge: though regarding Roland's change, i'd prefer to
-      actually test and see
-    < tschwinge> civodul: Thanks!