[Bug binutils/25803] cross compilation of glibc using mips64el-none-linux-gnu as the host

[broly at mac dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25803

--- Comment #29 from gagan singh sidhu (gagz, broly, w/e u want) <broly at mac 
dot com> ---
hi cliffz,

thanks for this information.

i saw your commit and while it’s not wrong, i was hoping you would be open to
suggestions:

1. we don’t need both the changes to elfxx-mips.c and obj-elf.c. 
        -the change to obj-elf.c will avoid us ever having the situation again
in elfxx-mips.c

so in terms of a minimalist aspect, i was hoping you would pick whichever
change you wanted, and disregard the other.
        -the whole “less changes is a good thing” paradigm

no comment on testsuite stuff as i am not familiar with them.

Thanks,
Gagan

> On Apr 17, 2020, at 1:14 AM, nickc at redhat dot com <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25803
> 
> Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> changed:
> 
>           What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
>         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
> 
> --- Comment #28 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> ---
> (In reply to gagan singh sidhu (gagz, broly, w/e u want) from comment #27)
> 
>> if you don’t mind, would you allow me to mail you in the future to learn
>> about how exactly you pinpointed the issue?
> 
> You can - although there is no need to just email me - you can ask here, or on
> the binutils mailing list: address@hidden.
> 
> Anyway to answer your question, I basically followed my standard bug
> locating/fixing procedure which is:
> 
>  1. Reproduce the problem.  [This was actually the hardest step]
>  2. Add print statements to the code to find out what is wrong.
>     [Other people use debuggers, but I am old school].
>  3. Generate possible fixes based on the knowledge of what is wrong.
>  4. Test them out.
> 
> In this particular case I replaced the assertion that was being triggered with
> a series of printf()s telling me about the symbols that were causing the
> problems.  I then followed several blind alleys assuming that the symbols
> should not have been there and trying to find out why.  Eventually however I
> was able to prove to my satisfaction that the higher level code was correct 
> and
> that the symbols were indeed dynamic symbols.  So then I looked more closely 
> at
> them, saw their similar looking names, and hence created my post about "what 
> is
> special about these clock symbols".  Digging deeper I eventually noticed that
> they were all IFUNC symbols and then is when the penny dropped.
> 
> Cheers
>  Nick
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.