[gentoo-dev] Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[gentoo-dev] Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

Hi there,

It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down
packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a good way
to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on LDFLAGS
(or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?

I would also like to know the procedures I should follow to make this default
on every profile as well. Do I need a council approval for that?

Enabling this by default we really help QA team to track down packages that
don't respect LDFLAGS  (hence they don't respect either the --as-needed
option which was recenlty added to global LDFLAGS ).

Objections/thoughts on that?

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Tomáš Chvátal]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dne 7.8.2010 18:32, Markos Chandras napsal(a):
> Hi there,
> 
> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down
> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a good way
> to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on LDFLAGS
> (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?
> 
> I would also like to know the procedures I should follow to make this default
> on every profile as well. Do I need a council approval for that?
> 
> Enabling this by default we really help QA team to track down packages that
> don't respect LDFLAGS  (hence they don't respect either the --as-needed
> option which was recenlty added to global LDFLAGS ).
> 
> Objections/thoughts on that?
> 
You can't do that.
What if you dont have GNU setup :]

Cheers
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkxdi0wACgkQHB6c3gNBRYdR7QCgwmyxMCQq/sIUUrj0t3Ros0Sw
q/8AnAhxv5m0k3FUgVrkJxM/X69KITg1
=1rl7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Alexis Ballier]

> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down
> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a good
> way to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on
> LDFLAGS (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?

no

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_27dfa5198d43c5ef1b4bfdc7d19e970f.xml

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 785 bytes --]

O Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 07:37:50PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down
> > packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a good
> > way to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on
> > LDFLAGS (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?
> 
> no
> 
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_27dfa5198d43c5ef1b4bfdc7d19e970f.xml
> 
> A.
> 
Fair enough
I wasn't aware that a previous discussion took place on -dev in the past

Is there another way to deal with this?
-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Alexis Ballier]

On Saturday 07 August 2010 19:48:35 Markos Chandras wrote:
> Is there another way to deal with this?

Advertising it is enough IMHO

Re: [gentoo-dev] Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 599 bytes --]

On Saturday, August 07, 2010 12:37:50 Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down
> > packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a
> > good way to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by
> > default on LDFLAGS (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you
> > agree?
> 
> no
> 
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_27dfa5198d43c5ef1b4bfdc7d19e970f.
> xml

hmm, i thought i remembered answering this question before.  figured i was 
just making things up in my head ;).
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Diego Elio “Flameeyes” Pettenò]

Il giorno sab, 07/08/2010 alle 19.32 +0300, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
> 
> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track
> down
> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a
> good way
> to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on
> LDFLAGS
> (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?
> 
It really depends on which glibc the profiles have been using:

 - >= 2.5 -> force --hash-style=gnu, reduced link time and smaller
files;
 - < 2.5 -> force --hash-style=sysv, as above, but gnu would make lose
the hash entirely.

Somebody who works with uclibc should let us know which one of the two
is actually supported by which uclibc.
> 
-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes”
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is,
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1134 bytes --]

> 
> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track
> down
> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a
> good way
> to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on
> LDFLAGS
> (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?
> 
I would really really *really* appreciated if our beloved arch testers ( at least for linux amd64/x86
because they are the first who stabilize a package ) make this default
on their build boxes. It is annoying to mark a package stable when it has
*clear* QA problems. 
Please make your build box stricter on QA rules and don't
mark a package stable that easy. Marking a package stable with multiple QA
warnings, is forcing QA team to either fix a *stable* package, which is
violating the policy, or doing some useless revbumps to fix QA issues which shouldn't be there if arch testers did
actual testing at the first place

Thanks

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track
>> down
>> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a
>> good way
>> to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on
>> LDFLAGS
>> (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?
>
> I would really really *really* appreciated if our beloved arch testers ( at least for linux amd64/x86
> because they are the first who stabilize a package ) make this default
> on their build boxes.

sounds like someone needs to update/extend the arch testing
documentation.  random e-mails posted to random dev lists are quickly
forgotten.  new arch testers however should be reading the arch tester
documnt.

> It is annoying to mark a package stable when it has *clear* QA problems.

please dont blow this out of proportion.  two points:
 - stabilizing newer versions of a package when there is no QA
regression is fine.
 - ignoring LDFLAGS, while incorrect, is rarely going to lead to
broken packages being emerged on end users' systems.  ignoring
CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS however is much more likely to result in problems for
end users when working with multilib or cross builds.
-mike

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2007 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:31:52PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track
> >> down
> >> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a
> >> good way
> >> to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on
> >> LDFLAGS
> >> (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?
> >
> > I would really really *really* appreciated if our beloved arch testers ( at least for linux amd64/x86
> > because they are the first who stabilize a package ) make this default
> > on their build boxes.
> 
> sounds like someone needs to update/extend the arch testing
> documentation.  random e-mails posted to random dev lists are quickly
> forgotten.  new arch testers however should be reading the arch tester
> documnt.
>
I will update the guide for amd64 HT and I will strongly advice the rest of
the arches to do that as well. Using my QA powerzzz I will be quite strict
from now on with arches making such stabilizations.
> > It is annoying to mark a package stable when it has *clear* QA problems.
> 
> please dont blow this out of proportion.  two points:
>  - stabilizing newer versions of a package when there is no QA
> regression is fine.
Fair enough, still those QA need fixing. The fact that these QA probs are not
regressions doesn't mean it is ok to ignore them
>  - ignoring LDFLAGS, while incorrect, is rarely going to lead to
> broken packages being emerged on end users' systems.  ignoring
> CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS however is much more likely to result in problems for
> end users when working with multilib or cross builds.
> -mike
Of course. Respecting any *FLAGS is vital and definitely ony of the many
reasons we use Gentoo.

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2383 bytes --]

Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> said:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:31:52PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > >> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track
> > >> down
> > >> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu
> > >> is a good way
> > >> to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by
> > >> default on LDFLAGS
> > >> (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?
> > > 
> > > I would really really *really* appreciated if our beloved arch
> > > testers ( at least for linux amd64/x86 because they are the first
> > > who stabilize a package ) make this default on their build boxes.
> > 
> > sounds like someone needs to update/extend the arch testing
> > documentation.  random e-mails posted to random dev lists are quickly
> > forgotten.  new arch testers however should be reading the arch
> > tester documnt.
> 
> I will update the guide for amd64 HT and I will strongly advice the
> rest of the arches to do that as well. Using my QA powerzzz I will be
> quite strict from now on with arches making such stabilizations.

i agree on this. 
packages on which portage complains about stuff like

dohtml: bla file not found

should not be marked stable. arch testers should not let stuff like this 
pass by. of course, neither should developers.

but then again, we need better documentation of all of this. 

lyckily, the wiki effort has been killed off by a recent cabal</sarcasm>

kind regards
Thilo

> 
> > > It is annoying to mark a package stable when it has *clear* QA
> > > problems.
> > 
> > please dont blow this out of proportion.  two points:
> >  - stabilizing newer versions of a package when there is no QA
> > 
> > regression is fine.
> 
> Fair enough, still those QA need fixing. The fact that these QA probs
> are not regressions doesn't mean it is ok to ignore them
> 
> >  - ignoring LDFLAGS, while incorrect, is rarely going to lead to
> > 
> > broken packages being emerged on end users' systems.  ignoring
> > CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS however is much more likely to result in problems for
> > end users when working with multilib or cross builds.
> > -mike
> 
> Of course. Respecting any *FLAGS is vital and definitely ony of the
> many reasons we use Gentoo.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 475 bytes --]

Hi,

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:
> sounds like someone needs to update/extend the arch testing
> documentation.  random e-mails posted to random dev lists are quickly
> forgotten.  new arch testers however should be reading the arch tester
> documnt.

 It has been added to the x86 AT guide.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 882 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:35:57AM +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:
> > sounds like someone needs to update/extend the arch testing
> > documentation.  random e-mails posted to random dev lists are quickly
> > forgotten.  new arch testers however should be reading the arch tester
> > documnt.
> 
>  It has been added to the x86 AT guide.
> 
> V-Li
> 
> -- 
> Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
> <URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
> 
> <URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

Could someone guide me to add --hash-style=gnu to default/linux/amd64/dev
profile? I don't want to break anything

Thanks

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1062 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:11:42 +0300
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Could someone guide me to add --hash-style=gnu to default/linux/amd64/dev
> profile? I don't want to break anything

The thing is, you can't right now. :D  LDFLAGS don't stack, meaning you'd
have to do something like

--- targets/developer/make.defaults     26 Jul 2010 19:15:05 -0000      1.9
+++ targets/developer/make.defaults     14 Aug 2010 03:31:18 -0000
@@ -12,3 +12,6 @@
 
 # Log eqawarn messages
 PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa"
+
+# Help find packages not respecting LDFLAGS
+LDFLAGS="-Wl,--hash-style=gnu ${LDFLAGS}"


Which breaks boost-build (bug #293652).  That's why I suggested just putting
a message in targets/developer/profile.bashrc (which is otherwise completely
useless).


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                                   and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgets                        to keep us from losing our minds
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:43:35 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:


> The thing is, you can't right now. :D  LDFLAGS don't stack, meaning you'd
> have to do something like
> 
> --- targets/developer/make.defaults     26 Jul 2010 19:15:05 -0000      1.9
> +++ targets/developer/make.defaults     14 Aug 2010 03:31:18 -0000
> @@ -12,3 +12,6 @@
>  
>  # Log eqawarn messages
>  PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa"
> +
> +# Help find packages not respecting LDFLAGS
> +LDFLAGS="-Wl,--hash-style=gnu ${LDFLAGS}"
> 

Oops, I guess that should be default/linux/amd64/dev/make.defaults.


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                                   and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgets                        to keep us from losing our minds
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1250 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:50:10PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:43:35 -0600
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, you can't right now. :D  LDFLAGS don't stack, meaning you'd
> > have to do something like
> > 
> > --- targets/developer/make.defaults     26 Jul 2010 19:15:05 -0000      1.9
> > +++ targets/developer/make.defaults     14 Aug 2010 03:31:18 -0000
> > @@ -12,3 +12,6 @@
> >  
> >  # Log eqawarn messages
> >  PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa"
> > +
> > +# Help find packages not respecting LDFLAGS
> > +LDFLAGS="-Wl,--hash-style=gnu ${LDFLAGS}"
> > 
> 
> Oops, I guess that should be default/linux/amd64/dev/make.defaults.
> 
> 
> -- 
> fonts, gcc-porting,                                   and it's all by design
> toolchain, wxwidgets                        to keep us from losing our minds
> @ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Yeah it should be a new make.defaults file under
/default/linux/amd64/dev/ folder. I will apply it locally and if that
works I will push it later this day

Thank you both

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:11:42 +0300 Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Could someone guide me to add --hash-style=gnu to default/linux/amd64/dev
>> profile? I don't want to break anything
>
> The thing is, you can't right now. :D  LDFLAGS don't stack, meaning you'd
> have to do something like
>
> --- targets/developer/make.defaults     26 Jul 2010 19:15:05 -0000      1.9
> +++ targets/developer/make.defaults     14 Aug 2010 03:31:18 -0000
> @@ -12,3 +12,6 @@
>
>  # Log eqawarn messages
>  PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa"
> +
> +# Help find packages not respecting LDFLAGS
> +LDFLAGS="-Wl,--hash-style=gnu ${LDFLAGS}"
>
>
> Which breaks boost-build (bug #293652).  That's why I suggested just putting
> a message in targets/developer/profile.bashrc (which is otherwise completely
> useless).

that's crap.  fix the package or at least work around it:
LDFLAGS=`echo ${LDFLAGS}`

we shouldnt be forced to add random hacks throughout the tree because
of one or two random broken packages
-mike

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:14:28 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> that's crap.  fix the package or at least work around it:
> LDFLAGS=`echo ${LDFLAGS}`
> 
> we shouldnt be forced to add random hacks throughout the tree because
> of one or two random broken packages

Yes, I meant don't commit it until someone fixes boost-build.  I just did so
go ahead.


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                                   and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgets                        to keep us from losing our minds
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:14:28 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> that's crap.  fix the package or at least work around it:
>> LDFLAGS=`echo ${LDFLAGS}`
>>
>> we shouldnt be forced to add random hacks throughout the tree because
>> of one or two random broken packages
>
> Yes, I meant don't commit it until someone fixes boost-build.  I just did so
> go ahead.

sorry, i thought you meant that we should block the profile change indefinitely
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1544 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 02:40:40AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:14:28 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> that's crap.  fix the package or at least work around it:
> >> LDFLAGS=`echo ${LDFLAGS}`
> >>
> >> we shouldnt be forced to add random hacks throughout the tree because
> >> of one or two random broken packages
> >
> > Yes, I meant don't commit it until someone fixes boost-build.  I just did so
> > go ahead.
> 
> sorry, i thought you meant that we should block the profile change indefinitely
> -mike
> 
Now this doesn't seem to work


~$ cat development/gentoo-cvs/gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux/amd64/dev/make.defaults

LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} -Wl,--hash-style=gnu"

~$  eselect profile list
Available profile symlink targets:
[1]   default/linux/amd64/10.0
[2]   default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop
[3]   default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop/gnome
[4]   default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop/kde
[5]   default/linux/amd64/10.0/developer *

* simple compile output *
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ -O2 -march=native -pipe -Wall -ggdb -Wl,-O1
-Wl,--as-needed  -c -D_GNU_SOURCE   debugTracer.cpp

However if I add the new make.defaults to default/linux/amd64/10.0/developer
it works as expected

Are you sure that default/linux/amd64/dev/ is the correct place to touch?
-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> ~$ cat development/gentoo-cvs/gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux/amd64/dev/make.defaults

i'm pretty sure all the /dev subdirs are dead now and unified in
targets/developer

in fact, i dont see anyone referencing that subdir, so i guess we can
just punt it
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 730 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:58:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > ~$ cat development/gentoo-cvs/gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux/amd64/dev/make.defaults
> 
> i'm pretty sure all the /dev subdirs are dead now and unified in
> targets/developer
> 
> in fact, i dont see anyone referencing that subdir, so i guess we can
> just punt it
> -mike
> 
Fair enough. Then I will introduce a new make.defaults
default/linux/amd64/10.0/developer later today.

Thanks to guiding me through this
-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Samuli Suominen]

On 08/14/2010 08:58 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> ~$ cat development/gentoo-cvs/gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux/amd64/dev/make.defaults
> 
> i'm pretty sure all the /dev subdirs are dead now and unified in
> targets/developer
> 
> in fact, i dont see anyone referencing that subdir, so i guess we can
> just punt it

the dev/ directory in amd64 is special one:

it's for creating emul-linux-x86- packages. it provides "out of box"
environment for that task.

dont remove it. it's useful & being used.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 08/14/2010 08:58 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> ~$ cat development/gentoo-cvs/gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux/amd64/dev/make.defaults
>>
>> i'm pretty sure all the /dev subdirs are dead now and unified in
>> targets/developer
>>
>> in fact, i dont see anyone referencing that subdir, so i guess we can
>> just punt it
>
> the dev/ directory in amd64 is special one:
>
> it's for creating emul-linux-x86- packages. it provides "out of box"
> environment for that task.
>
> dont remove it. it's useful & being used.

i guess if i had read dev/32bit-userland/README, i'd know this
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 721 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:58:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > ~$ cat development/gentoo-cvs/gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux/amd64/dev/make.defaults
> 
> i'm pretty sure all the /dev subdirs are dead now and unified in
> targets/developer
> 
> in fact, i dont see anyone referencing that subdir, so i guess we can
> just punt it
> -mike
> 
Just committed that new make.defaults for amd64/10.0/developer profile. 

@x86 Could you please do the same for your dev profile?
-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 953 bytes --]

Hi,

Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>:

> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:58:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > ~$ cat
> > > development/gentoo-cvs/gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux/amd64/dev/make.defaults
> > 
> > i'm pretty sure all the /dev subdirs are dead now and unified in
> > targets/developer
> > 
> > in fact, i dont see anyone referencing that subdir, so i guess we
> > can just punt it
> > -mike
> > 
> Just committed that new make.defaults for amd64/10.0/developer
> profile. 
> 
> @x86 Could you please do the same for your dev profile?

 It would be smart to cc the x86 team actually, and use the ChangeLog
file. I don't read all -dev posts so I can react to random requests.
Added.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1277 bytes --]

On Saturday, August 07, 2010 12:32:31 Markos Chandras wrote:
> It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down
> packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a good
> way to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on
> LDFLAGS (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?

it isnt a valid flag for everyone.  it requires a new enough binutils (not too 
big of a deal), a new enough glibc (also not too big of a deal), and you cant 
be a mips target (glibc support is broken).  support does exist in uClibc, but 
only in recent versions (this is an issue), and hasnt been widely tested for 
many targets.

it also can cause binary compatibility issues for people who wish to compile a 
package on Gentoo but deploy elsewhere.  not sure how much of a hassle this is 
for people.

considering the only real benefit is that it automates a QA check, i dont 
think it's worth the hassle.  newer Gentoo binutils already enables .gnu.hash 
support by default, so people get the speed increase transparently.

> I would also like to know the procedures I should follow to make this
> default on every profile as well. Do I need a council approval for that?

not really
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1544 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 05:32:42PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday, August 07, 2010 12:32:31 Markos Chandras wrote:
> > It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down
> > packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a good
> > way to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on
> > LDFLAGS (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?
> 
> it isnt a valid flag for everyone.  it requires a new enough binutils (not too 
> big of a deal), a new enough glibc (also not too big of a deal), and you cant 
> be a mips target (glibc support is broken).  support does exist in uClibc, but 
> only in recent versions (this is an issue), and hasnt been widely tested for 
> many targets.
>
We could at least enable that on x86/amd64 dev profiles (since only devs are
supposed to use them and they are the most used arches among us) just to get some more
feedback and fix the packages before they reach the end users. This will
reduce the bug # and make sure that --as-needed is respected in a broader
range of packages
> 
> considering the only real benefit is that it automates a QA check, i dont 
> think it's worth the hassle.  newer Gentoo binutils already enables .gnu.hash 
> support by default, so people get the speed increase transparently.
Agreed


-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 05:32:42PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 07, 2010 12:32:31 Markos Chandras wrote:
>> > It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down
>> > packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a good
>> > way to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by default on
>> > LDFLAGS (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you agree?
>>
>> it isnt a valid flag for everyone.  it requires a new enough binutils (not too
>> big of a deal), a new enough glibc (also not too big of a deal), and you cant
>> be a mips target (glibc support is broken).  support does exist in uClibc, but
>> only in recent versions (this is an issue), and hasnt been widely tested for
>> many targets.
>>
> We could at least enable that on x86/amd64 dev profiles (since only devs are
> supposed to use them and they are the most used arches among us) just to get some more
> feedback and fix the packages before they reach the end users. This will
> reduce the bug # and make sure that --as-needed is respected in a broader
> range of packages

Why not just set some LDFLAGS that totally won't work (-Wl, taters)
and then assume anything that actually compiles with those flags set
does not respect LDFLAGS.  Set that up on a tinderbox instead of
making users do it.

-A

>>
>> considering the only real benefit is that it automates a QA check, i dont
>> think it's worth the hassle.  newer Gentoo binutils already enables .gnu.hash
>> support by default, so people get the speed increase transparently.
> Agreed
>
>
> --
> Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
> Gentoo Linux Developer
> Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
> Key ID: 441AC410
> Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 785 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 05:15:04PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
> 
> Why not just set some LDFLAGS that totally won't work (-Wl, taters)
> and then assume anything that actually compiles with those flags set
> does not respect LDFLAGS.  Set that up on a tinderbox instead of
> making users do it.
> 
> -A
Alec

I was only talking about the *dev* profiles. As I said this will help
*developers* to track this problem and fix it before they commit their
packages to tree. Tinderbox will only catch packages that are already in the
tree. The main goal here is to fix these packages before they reach it

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --]

On 08/08/2010 03:21 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 05:15:04PM -0700, Alec Warner wrote:
>>
>> Why not just set some LDFLAGS that totally won't work (-Wl, taters)
>> and then assume anything that actually compiles with those flags set
>> does not respect LDFLAGS.  Set that up on a tinderbox instead of
>> making users do it.
>>
>> -A
> Alec
> 
> I was only talking about the *dev* profiles. As I said this will help
> *developers* to track this problem and fix it before they commit their
> packages to tree. Tinderbox will only catch packages that are already in the
> tree. The main goal here is to fix these packages before they reach it
> 

I suggest making the dev profiles just pull in a binutils version that
automatically enables the support (excluding profiles where binutils is
not used).

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 717 bytes --]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 10:57:34 +0300
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I suggest making the dev profiles just pull in a binutils version that
> automatically enables the support (excluding profiles where binutils is
> not used).

Cutting off a portion of binutils versions in the tree to developers
does not seem like a good idea to me.

How about just putting a check in targets/developer/profile.bashrc
and suggesting people enable it if they can?


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                                   and it's all by design
toolchain, wxwidgets                        to keep us from losing our minds
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno sab, 07/08/2010 alle 17.15 -0700, Alec Warner ha scritto:
> 
> Why not just set some LDFLAGS that totally won't work (-Wl, taters)
> and then assume anything that actually compiles with those flags set
> does not respect LDFLAGS.  Set that up on a tinderbox instead of
> making users do it. 

Because such negative tests don't get far away: a single package failing
will drop its whole deptree from merging. And we have much more
important things to look for with a tinderbox than this, given the
amount of (failure) builds you'd be expected to see with this approach.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Diego Elio Pettenò]

Il giorno dom, 08/08/2010 alle 03.11 +0300, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
> We could at least enable that on x86/amd64 dev profiles (since only
> devs are
> supposed to use them and they are the most used arches among us) just
> to get some more
> feedback and fix the packages before they reach the end users. This
> will
> reduce the bug # and make sure that --as-needed is respected in a
> broader
> range of packages 

I've set it out on the tinderbox, I can start reporting bugs from
there... the problem is: _who_ is going to look at them?

You can already deduce a subset of packages not respecting ldflags by
taking the bugs that I report with forced --as-needed, take out those
reported for LDFLAGS=-Wl,--as-needed as well: what remains is usually
stuff that uses filter-ldflags or simply ignores the LDFLAGS variable.
Not all of them, but some of them for a start.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1016 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 02:19:05AM +0200, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 08/08/2010 alle 03.11 +0300, Markos Chandras ha scritto:
> > We could at least enable that on x86/amd64 dev profiles (since only
> > devs are
> > supposed to use them and they are the most used arches among us) just
> > to get some more
> > feedback and fix the packages before they reach the end users. This
> > will
> > reduce the bug # and make sure that --as-needed is respected in a
> > broader
> > range of packages 
> 
> I've set it out on the tinderbox, I can start reporting bugs from
> there... the problem is: _who_ is going to look at them?
I 've already started fixing those bugs myself but the real goal here is to
poke maintainers fix them before they commit their packages to the tree. Thats
the whole point of this thread.

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1363 bytes --]

On Saturday, August 07, 2010 20:11:42 Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 05:32:42PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 07, 2010 12:32:31 Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > It seems like few of our fellow developers don't know how to track down
> > > packages that don't respect LDFLAGS. Adding -Wl,--hash-style=gnu is a
> > > good way to do that. I would like to see this linker flag enabled by
> > > default on LDFLAGS (or at least for the dev/ profiles for now). Do you
> > > agree?
> > 
> > it isnt a valid flag for everyone.  it requires a new enough binutils
> > (not too big of a deal), a new enough glibc (also not too big of a
> > deal), and you cant be a mips target (glibc support is broken).  support
> > does exist in uClibc, but only in recent versions (this is an issue),
> > and hasnt been widely tested for many targets.
> 
> We could at least enable that on x86/amd64 dev profiles (since only devs
> are supposed to use them and they are the most used arches among us) just
> to get some more feedback and fix the packages before they reach the end
> users. This will reduce the bug # and make sure that --as-needed is
> respected in a broader range of packages

obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles.  i dont have a strong 
opinion on that small subset in either direction.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 427 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles.  i dont have a strong 
> opinion on that small subset in either direction.
> -mike
Yes, sorry I only meant the linux profiles


-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 599 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
> obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles.  i dont have a strong 
> opinion on that small subset in either direction.
> -mike

So do you agree to make this linker option default to linux x86/amd64 dev/
profiles?

I don't know how many dev are using those 2 profiles, but if there are no
objections I will add it in 72 hours

Thanks

-- 
Markos Chandras (hwoarang)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org
Key ID: 441AC410
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles.  i dont have a strong
>> opinion on that small subset in either direction.
>
> So do you agree to make this linker option default to linux x86/amd64 dev/
> profiles?

add them or dont add them, "i dont have a [...] opinion [...] in
either direction".  if put to a vote, i'd abstain.
-mike

[gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 765 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 07:05:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles.  i dont have a strong
> >> opinion on that small subset in either direction.
> >
> > So do you agree to make this linker option default to linux x86/amd64 dev/
> > profiles?
> 
> add them or dont add them, "i dont have a [...] opinion [...] in
> either direction".  if put to a vote, i'd abstain.

Possibly a stupid question, but any reason we've not looked at 
injecting something that has lower actual affect but can still be used 
for a canary?  I'm thinking of --build-id specifically...

~brian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Francesco R]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2564 bytes --]

2010/8/10 Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>

> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 07:05:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >> obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles.  i dont have a
> strong
> > >> opinion on that small subset in either direction.
> > >
> > > So do you agree to make this linker option default to linux x86/amd64
> dev/
> > > profiles?
> >
> > add them or dont add them, "i dont have a [...] opinion [...] in
> > either direction".  if put to a vote, i'd abstain.
>
> Possibly a stupid question, but any reason we've not looked at
> injecting something that has lower actual affect but can still be used
> for a canary?  I'm thinking of --build-id specifically...
>
> ~brian
>

I don't know how --hash-style=gnu is used to check for LDFLAGS, so this may
be OT.

On my personal and _breakable_ desktop I do use
LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed
-Wl,--sort-common -Wl,--build-id"
in make.conf.

Would this two liners tell me which package who install binaries in /usr/bin
does not respect ldflags?

# for i in /usr/bin/* ; do eu-unstrip -n -e  $i ; done &> build-id.txt
# qfile $(grep '0x[0-9]*+0x[0-9]* - ' build-id.txt | awk '{ print $3 }')

On a side note, I've noticed that build-id change at every re-compilation of
the package, even if nothing changed in the system, since it's supposed to
be a "160-bit SHA1 hash on the normative parts of the output contents"
should it be the same if the package is compiled on the same system with no
changes?

Output of the two liners for this system:

sys-apps/turbotail (/usr/bin/turbotail)
app-arch/rzip (/usr/bin/runzip)
app-arch/rzip (/usr/bin/rzip)
dev-lang/go (/usr/bin/6a)
dev-lang/go (/usr/bin/6cov)
dev-lang/go (/usr/bin/6l)
dev-lang/go (/usr/bin/6nm)
dev-lang/xharbour (/usr/bin/pprun)
dev-lang/xharbour (/usr/bin/hbmake)
dev-lang/xharbour (/usr/bin/hbdict)
dev-lang/xharbour (/usr/bin/xbscript)
dev-lang/perl (/usr/bin/perl)
dev-lang/perl (/usr/bin/perl5.12.1)
dev-lang/R (/usr/bin/Rscript)
x11-misc/xcb (/usr/bin/xcb)
dev-libs/dietlibc (/usr/bin/dnsd)
dev-libs/dietlibc (/usr/bin/elftrunc)
app-text/o3read (/usr/bin/utf8tolatin1)
app-accessibility/festival (/usr/bin/audsp)
app-accessibility/espeak (/usr/bin/espeak)
sys-devel/gcc (/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcjh-4.4.4)
sys-devel/gcc (/usr/bin/gcjh-4.4.4)
sys-devel/llvm-gcc (/usr/bin/llvm-gcov)
sys-devel/qconf (/usr/bin/qconf)
www-plugins/lightspark (/usr/bin/lightspark)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3513 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Francesco R wrote:
> I don't know how --hash-style=gnu is used to check for LDFLAGS, so this may
> be OT.

it looks to see what ELFs still have a .hash section

> On my personal and _breakable_ desktop I do use
> LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed
> -Wl,--sort-common -Wl,--build-id"
> in make.conf.
> Would this two liners tell me which package who install binaries in /usr/bin
> does not respect ldflags?
> # for i in /usr/bin/* ; do eu-unstrip -n -e  $i ; done &> build-id.txt
> # qfile $(grep '0x[0-9]*+0x[0-9]* - ' build-id.txt | awk '{ print $3 }')

way more complicated than necessary.  simply do:
scanelf -qyRk.hash -F'%F#k' /usr/bin/

this is after all what portage is using now
-mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 07:05:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles.  i dont have a strong
>> >> opinion on that small subset in either direction.
>> >
>> > So do you agree to make this linker option default to linux x86/amd64 dev/
>> > profiles?
>>
>> add them or dont add them, "i dont have a [...] opinion [...] in
>> either direction".  if put to a vote, i'd abstain.
>
> Possibly a stupid question, but any reason we've not looked at
> injecting something that has lower actual affect but can still be used
> for a canary?  I'm thinking of --build-id specifically...

my gut reaction there is now you're requiring even newer versions of
binutils than before, and not just to find ones that support
--build-id, but do so without bugs (that's my vague recollection of
things; perhaps i'm wrong).  and you still wouldnt pass the "not safe
outside of Gentoo Linux profiles".

also, although the overhead is minor, the build id section would serve
no useful purpose that i can think once it has been merged.  gnu hash
however is always used at runtime.
-mike