qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] pc-bios/s390-ccw.img: Fix build


From: Cornelia Huck
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/1] pc-bios/s390-ccw.img: Fix build
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:28:53 +0200

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:57:47 +0200
Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 15/08/2016 13:03, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Since
> > commit a9c87304b76d ("build-sys: fix building with make CFLAGS=.. argument")
> > 
> > pc-bios/s390-ccw.img build might fail with
> > 
> > --- snip ---
> > main.o: In function `virtio_setup':
> > qemu/pc-bios/s390-ccw/main.c:117: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
> > --- snip ---
> > 
> > Changing the CFLAGS to QEMU_CFLAGS does the trick. We also need to
> > add -fno-strict-aliasing as this was filtered out.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <address@hidden>
> > ---
> > V1->V2: use fno-strict-aliasing instead of changing the code
> >  pc-bios/s390-ccw/Makefile | 6 ++++--
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/Makefile b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/Makefile
> > index 4208cb4..0ab2538 100644
> > --- a/pc-bios/s390-ccw/Makefile
> > +++ b/pc-bios/s390-ccw/Makefile
> > @@ -10,8 +10,10 @@ $(call set-vpath, $(SRC_PATH)/pc-bios/s390-ccw)
> >  .PHONY : all clean build-all
> >  
> >  OBJECTS = start.o main.o bootmap.o sclp-ascii.o virtio.o virtio-scsi.o
> > -CFLAGS += -fPIE -fno-stack-protector -ffreestanding -march=z900
> > -CFLAGS += -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -msoft-float
> > +QEMU_CFLAGS := $(filter -W%, $(QEMU_CFLAGS))
> > +QEMU_CFLAGS += -ffreestanding -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -msoft-float
> > +QEMU_CFLAGS += -march=z900 -fPIE -fno-strict-aliasing
> > +QEMU_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, $(QEMU_CFLAGS), -fno-stack-protector)
> >  LDFLAGS += -Wl,-pie -nostdlib
> >  
> >  build-all: s390-ccw.img
> > 
> 
> Looks pretty much like pc-bios/optionrom/Makefile with respect to C
> compiler flags.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>

Yes, that's also what I thought, so I already pushed it upstream :)

Still, thanks for the review!




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]