[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241010205716.GN10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 16:57:16 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: Alex Rønne Petersen <alex@...xrp.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Fix _init/_fini alignment in crti.o.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 10:50:46PM +0200, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> This is just cbf59dd6 applied to arm. It manifested when compiling for thumb2
> with zig cc (clang) + lld at -O1 or above, but not at -O0.
> ---
> crt/arm/crti.s | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/crt/arm/crti.s b/crt/arm/crti.s
> index 18dc1e41..cccda3ea 100644
> --- a/crt/arm/crti.s
> +++ b/crt/arm/crti.s
> @@ -3,11 +3,13 @@
> .section .init
> .global _init
> .type _init,%function
> +.align 2
> _init:
> push {r0,lr}
>
> .section .fini
> .global _fini
> .type _fini,%function
> +.align 2
> _fini:
> push {r0,lr}
> --
> 2.40.1
No objection to this fix, but I wonder if after applying it we should
just remove these files entirely. We have NO_LEGACY_INITFINI defined
on arm due to a historical mistake, so these will never be called in
dynamic-linked programs. I guess theoretically they could be used with
static linking, but all functional toolchains will be using init/fini
arrays instead or they would be incompatible with dynamic linking.
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.
