https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233520#c3 --- Comment #3 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com> --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #2)
I'd be open to a submit request doing that.
Or should the patch be dropped completely, as I see: $ ld --help|grep relro -z relro Create RELRO program header (default) due to ld/lexsup.c: #if DEFAULT_LD_Z_RELRO fprintf (file, _("\ -z relro Create RELRO program header (default)\n")); fprintf (file, _("\ -z norelro Don't create RELRO program header\n")); #else fprintf (file, _("\ -z relro Create RELRO program header\n")); fprintf (file, _("\ -z norelro Don't create RELRO program header (default)\n")); #endif and ld/configure.tgt: case "${target}" in frv-*-* | hppa*-*-* | ia64-*-* | mips*-*-*) # Don't enable -z relro by default since many relro tests fail on these # targets: # FAIL: strip -z relro (relro1) # FAIL: strip -z relro -shared (relro1) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro (relro1) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro -shared (relro1) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro (tdata1) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tdata1) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro (tdata2) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tdata2) # FAIL: objcopy -z relro (tdata3) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tdata3) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tbss1) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tbss2) # FAIL: objcopy -shared -z relro (tbss3) ;; *-*-linux*) if test ${ac_default_ld_z_relro} = unset; then ac_default_ld_z_relro=1 fi ;; esac If the behaviour the patch introduces should not be dropped for reasons I might not see, the patch should be dropped regardless and --enable-relro passed to configure instead. So your call what you want -- I can create a SR then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.