[OE-core] [PATCH] eglibc: Fix for dynamic linker broken offset

[Mark Hatle]

On 9/28/12 9:57 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 09:35 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 9/28/12 9:02 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 08:57 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/12 4:52 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 15:40 +0300, Andrei Dinu wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/24/2012 02:30 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 14:26 +0300, Andrei Dinu wrote:
>>>>>>>> +-	    *reloc_addr += sym->st_value;
>>>>>>>> ++	    *reloc_addr = sym->st_value;
>>>>>>> That patch looks slightly dubious to me.  Are you sure this doesn't
>>>>>>> introduce any regressions elsewhere?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have insufficient data to affirm that it doesn't introduces regressions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably it does at least pass the eglibc and binutils testsuites,
>>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> That patch is a workaround for an ARM issue related to thread local storage and
>>>> TLS offsets during runtime and prelinking.
>>>
>>> Right, I understand that.  But this doesn't really answer the question
>>> "does the workaround break anything else?".
>>
>> In my testing no.  But I never integrated it with OE, so I never ran the test
>> suite Khem was referring to.
>
> I think the testsuite Khem mentioned is just eglibc's builtin tests; it
> isn't actually specific to OE.  What did your testing consist of?
>

We have a battery of application tests which more or less consist of running all 
of the binaries on the system and looking for minimal reasonable behavior for 
each.  (Other apps get more exhaustive testing of course.)

Also the reported case of libust/librcu was verified as well.

I'm not sure if it was run, but typically we also run the LTP test suite and LSB 
test suite..  (but I didn't personally use it.)

--Mark

> p.
>
>