From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug  7 17:36:56 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F066106566C;
	Thu,  7 Aug 2008 17:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gonzo@freebsd.org)
Received: from luidgi.portaone.com (luidgi.portaone.com [195.138.219.143])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BCDE8FC26;
	Thu,  7 Aug 2008 17:36:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gonzo@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.pbxpress.com ([65.61.203.142] helo=leaf.pbxpress.com)
	by luidgi.portaone.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP
	(TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)id 1KR9Pz-000OFW-IU;
	Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:36:55 -0700
Received: from jeeves.bluezbox.com (82.193.112.144.ipnet.kiev.ua
	[82.193.112.144]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by leaf.pbxpress.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m77HdpiM022795
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gonzo@freebsd.org)
Message-ID: <489B32A2.1090302@freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:36:34 +0300
From: Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080704)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@freebsd.org>
References: <20080729.161303.709402272.imp@bsdimp.com>	<86r69buar0.fsf@ds4.des.no>
	<489B08F6.8060605@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <489B08F6.8060605@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, recieved from trusted server
Cc: kan@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>,
	pjd@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Need a code review
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:36:56 -0000

Oleksandr Tymoshenko wrote:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>> "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes:
>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~gonzo/mips2/libpam.diff
>>
>> This won't work.  Your patch unconditionally sets NO_STATIC_MODULES
>> which will result in a non-functional libpam.a (the modules will be
>> built into the library, but without any of the glue that allows the
>> library to find them) not just on mips, but on all other platforms.
> 
> openpam detects static modules build using cpp(1) condition:
> #if defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(__PIC__) && !defined(NO_STATIC_MODULES)
> The problem is that gcc MIPS option -mabi-calls assumes -fpic for both
> static and dynamic builds. So the question is: would defining
> NO_STATIC_MODULES for MIPS be enough or it should be addressed
> upstream?
     And diff in question is *completely* wrong. NO_STATIC_MODULES should
be added to flags when compiling objects for shlib, not to PICFLAGS
Actual "fix" passed unnoticed by me in contrib/openpam, sorry for misguiding.

-- 
gonzo