[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:04:02 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: SuperH conflict of arch/sh/__set_thread_area vs
thread/__set_thread_area
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 02:44:11AM +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to add a port for a SH4-like ARCH to OpenWRT, which uses the latest
> musl-1.1.10 as the default libc. I'm having the following problem when building
> the toolchain:
>
> During the final linker-step, the symbol "__set_thread_area" declared twice.
> This is because the SH architecture provides a separate __set_thread_area [0],
> (other archs use the standard syscall wrapper from [1]).
>
> Obviously, I want this issue fixed. However I'm new to SuperH and musl, that's
> why I need advise :-D. For now, I defined the src/thread/__set_thread_area as
> a weak symbol. Now, that's just a crude hack, what would be better solution?
> (I can make and post the patch if necessary - But sadly, I can't test it on the
> hardware yet)?
Bobby Bingham's reply explains what the issue is. Did you make a new
arch name rather than using the existing sh arch for your port? If
it's ABI-compatible, it would probably make more sense to use the
existing one and extend it to support your hardware. I'm working on an
sh-related project right now (see http://0pf.org/j-core.html) and one
of my goals is to get sh more unified as a platform where it's
possible to have binaries for the baseline ISA that work on lots of
different hardware models (including nommu ones).
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
