Some packages don’t work correctly with pie. Here I disable it for:
- busybox
- linux kernel
- kexectools
I also get rid of the Musl conditional for disabling pie in GCC and
Binutils. Some day we might want to enable PIE without Musl and it
will be useful to have the *just* work with our compiler and linkers.
These don’t like having -fPIE set for them. We should disable
hardening all the time, but in the interest of not changing hashes,
this only disables it for Musl (where it is now the default).
(cherry picked from commit a3a6884649354a660326acd68c1bd08ffd2dcfa2)
- respect libc’s incdir and libdir
- make non-unix systems single threaded
- set LIMITS_H_TEST to false for avr
- misc updates to support new libc’s
- use multilib with avr
For threads we want to use:
- posix on unix systems
- win32 on windows
- single on everything else
For avr:
- add library directories for avrlibc
- to disable relro and bind
- avr5 should have precedence over avr3 - otherwise gcc uses the wrong one
Only apply w/musl since while it's wrong everywhere it apparently
hasn't broken things entirely w/glibc so keep things as they were.
Patch regenerated from original so that it applies
which isn't saying much since it's simple :).
Source:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/154298/
IRC chat on #musl with Rich and others endorses this,
at least at the conceptual level of no shared library
should be using initial-exec TLS.
Fixes various uses of libgomp that previously crashed (before 1.1.20)
or encounter errors (post-1.1.20), such as pythonPackages.cython .
This isn't a MUSL thing, but just needed for cross compilation to x86.
No one had tried this when all cross compilation was to linux + glibc,
hence why no one noticed this until recently.
This has been not touched in 6 years. Let's remove it to cause less
problems when adding new cross-compiling infrastructure.
This also simplify gcc significantly.
And there's more reverts too. The previous commmit
d838afbc9376bdadb8c690eb00b425f3eeccdf2d to gnu-config finally solves
it!
This reverts commit 3ed545ab31.
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
(cherry picked from commit ba52ae5048)
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
