Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:00:01 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Problems? compiling musl toolchain On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 04:23:58PM +0200, Ruben Winistörfer wrote: > First: Compiling GCC 5.2.0 (and also 4.9.3) with musl 1.1.11 > toolchain I get a lot of warnings about missing sentinels in > function calls. Compiling GCC (same versions) with glibc toolchain > there's no such warning at all. > Replacing the function call sentinels 'NULL' with '(char *)NULL' in > the affected source code of GCC makes the warnings disappear. This warning is correct; the GCC code is wrong. NULL is not a valid way to pass a null pointer to a variadic function, especially not in C++ code. > My question: Does the reason for these warnings have some impact on > the health of the toolchain (is there something wrong?) or are they > just a byproduct of the correctness and standards-conformance of > musl? musl has arranged things so that this will work ok (and won't blow up) at runtime, but what GCC's source is doing formally incorrect and should be fixed. > Second: Compiling with a musl 1.1.11, GCC 5.2.0 (and 4.9.3), > Binutils 2.25.1 toolchain I get the following info (warning) over an > over again: > > ....ld: copy reloc against protected `stdout' is dangerous > ....ld: copy reloc against protected `stdin' is dangerous > ....ld: copy reloc against protected `stderr' is dangerous > > Same can be seen in Alpine Linux build logs: e.g. http://build.alpinelinux.org/buildlogs/build-edge-x86_64/main/patchutils/patchutils-0.3.4-r0.log > > Reason for these "warnings" seems to be a change in the linker from > binutils version 2.25 to 2.25.1. > Lines 2677 to 2680 in 'binutils-2.25.1/bfd/elflink.c' are new and in > my opinion the source of the issued warning. > My C knowledge is minimal but as far as I can tell this means that > the problem - if there is one at all - was already there before > binutils version 2.25.1, the linker just did not print the > "warning". > > I haven't seen this warning before using glibc. So i guess it has to > be musl-related. > > What do you think? Is there a problem or can I ignore these warnings? You can safely ignore them. I do plan to find a way to make them go away in the next release though, since they're confusing and concerning to many users. 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.