strace 4.5.3 versus gcc 3.4 snapshot 20040406 uclibc mipsel

[Bradley D. LaRonde]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <brad at laronde.org>
To: <strace-devel at lists.sourceforge.net>; <uclibc at uclibc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: strace 4.5.3 versus gcc 3.4 snapshot 20040406 uclibc mipsel


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <brad at laronde.org>
> To: <strace-devel at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Cc: <uclibc at uclibc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:57 PM
> Subject: strace 4.5.3 versus gcc 3.4 snapshot 20040406 uclibc mipsel
>
>
> > Using gcc 3.4 and uClibc for mipsel, built without -O, strace 4.5.3
seems
> to
> > work fine, but built -O[1,2,s] strace dies very quicky, doesn't matter
> > static or dynamic linked.  It crashes apparently in main() on it's way
to
> > the first qualify().  Looks like stack mangling.  Seems to work fine
with
> > gcc 3.3.3.  I'm building gcc 3.4 branch head to try now.  Any other
ideas?
>
> This is fun.  If I build with -fwritable-strings in addition to -O it
works
> fine.  Tested on gcc 3.4.0 release and binutils binutils 2.15.90.0.1.1.
>
> I built busybox with the same tools and without -fwritable-strings and it
> seems to run just fine.
>
> Should I post this to binutils and/or gcc lists?

I thought I might hunt down some wayward string-writing, but building strace
with -Wwrite-strings produces a prodigious amount of warnings.


Regards,
Brad