Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 15:29:57 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 236209] net/ceph13: fails to build with clang 8 Message-ID: <bug-236209-7788-MU3bcJMFRl@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-236209-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-236209-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D236209 --- Comment #6 from Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> --- (In reply to Jan Beich from comment #2) > > ld.lld and ld.bfd do not see eye2eye on versioning and versioning maps.. > > Can't you mark the port as LLD_UNSAFE? Sorry if I forgot the details=20 > why ld.bfd isn't good enough. At first ld.bfd ran out table space or something while binding some of the programs... So I switched to LLVM ld I now switched to the binutils in ports: 2.32, and that ld does not have th= at problem. Not everything is fixed, but that could very well be me changing t= oo much. After I reverted all, I hope things do compile again. > As for version maps it maybe an LLD regression, first noticed in bug 2306= 02. It is rather hard to find any documentation explaining versioning in depth. Let alone that it does not help that binutils ld and LLVM ld really do not = see things the same way. I got quite far, but now dynamic loading with dlopen() fail to find the versioned functions. But without good understanding it just is nothing more that factorial search in all the possible versions that could work (or most= ly not) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-236209-7788-MU3bcJMFRl>