weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Erik Forsberg-11

just updated to developer studio 12.5 on Solaris 11.3
I see lot of warnings when linking OpenSSL 1.1
looking like these

    link_app.solaris-shared
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.: cc -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DNDEBUG -DOPENSSL_THREADS -DOPENSSL_NO_STATIC_ENGINE -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM
-DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DPOLY1305_ASM -DOPENSSLDIR="/usr/local/ssl" -DENGINESDIR="/usr/local/lib/amd64/engines-1.1" -xc99 -m64 -xarch=gen
eric -xstrconst -DL_ENDIAN -xO5 -xdepend -xbuiltin -D_REENTRANT -DFILIO_H -mt -R /usr/local/lib/amd64 -o apps/openssl apps/app_rand.o apps/apps.o apps/asn1pars.o apps/ca.o apps/ciphers.o apps/cms.o apps/crl.o apps/c
rl2p7.o apps/dgst.o apps/dhparam.o apps/dsa.o apps/dsaparam.o apps/ec.o apps/ecparam.o apps/enc.o apps/engine.o apps/errstr.o apps/gendsa.o apps/genpkey.o apps/genrsa.o apps/nseq.o apps/ocsp.o apps/openssl.o apps/op
t.o apps/passwd.o apps/pkcs12.o apps/pkcs7.o apps/pkcs8.o apps/pkey.o apps/pkeyparam.o apps/pkeyutl.o apps/prime.o apps/rand.o apps/rehash.o apps/req.o apps/rsa.o apps/rsautl.o apps/s_cb.o apps/s_client.o apps/s_ser
ver.o apps/s_socket.o apps/s_time.o apps/sess_id.o apps/smime.o apps/speed.o apps/spkac.o apps/srp.o apps/ts.o apps/verify.o apps/version.o apps/x509.o -L. -lssl -L. -lcrypto -lresolv -lsocket -lnsl -ldl -lpthread
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBEPARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBE2PARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBKDF2PARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility

seems the common thing here is that libcrypto.num does this, not sure what
the implied effect is, but seems contradictory to me, one line says export as function
the other one says ! (export as variable instead)

PBEPARAM_it                             1307    1_1_0   EXIST:!EXPORT_VAR_AS_FUNCTION:VARIABLE:
PBEPARAM_it                             1307    1_1_0   EXIST:EXPORT_VAR_AS_FUNCTION:FUNCTION:
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Kurt Roeckx
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 08:27:30PM -0700, Erik Forsberg wrote:

>
> just updated to developer studio 12.5 on Solaris 11.3
> I see lot of warnings when linking OpenSSL 1.1
> looking like these
>
>     link_app.solaris-shared
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.: cc -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DNDEBUG -DOPENSSL_THREADS -DOPENSSL_NO_STATIC_ENGINE -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM
> -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DPOLY1305_ASM -DOPENSSLDIR="/usr/local/ssl" -DENGINESDIR="/usr/local/lib/amd64/engines-1.1" -xc99 -m64 -xarch=gen
> eric -xstrconst -DL_ENDIAN -xO5 -xdepend -xbuiltin -D_REENTRANT -DFILIO_H -mt -R /usr/local/lib/amd64 -o apps/openssl apps/app_rand.o apps/apps.o apps/asn1pars.o apps/ca.o apps/ciphers.o apps/cms.o apps/crl.o apps/c
> rl2p7.o apps/dgst.o apps/dhparam.o apps/dsa.o apps/dsaparam.o apps/ec.o apps/ecparam.o apps/enc.o apps/engine.o apps/errstr.o apps/gendsa.o apps/genpkey.o apps/genrsa.o apps/nseq.o apps/ocsp.o apps/openssl.o apps/op
> t.o apps/passwd.o apps/pkcs12.o apps/pkcs7.o apps/pkcs8.o apps/pkey.o apps/pkeyparam.o apps/pkeyutl.o apps/prime.o apps/rand.o apps/rehash.o apps/req.o apps/rsa.o apps/rsautl.o apps/s_cb.o apps/s_client.o apps/s_ser
> ver.o apps/s_socket.o apps/s_time.o apps/sess_id.o apps/smime.o apps/speed.o apps/spkac.o apps/srp.o apps/ts.o apps/verify.o apps/version.o apps/x509.o -L. -lssl -L. -lcrypto -lresolv -lsocket -lnsl -ldl -lpthread
> ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBEPARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
> ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBE2PARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
> ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBKDF2PARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility

I'm not sure why those symbols are marked as protected.  The only
thing we seem to be doing with visibilit is this:
./crypto/sparcv9cap.c:__attribute__ ((visibility("hidden")))

And you're not on sparc.

> seems the common thing here is that libcrypto.num does this, not sure what
> the implied effect is, but seems contradictory to me, one line says export as function
> the other one says ! (export as variable instead)
>
> PBEPARAM_it                             1307    1_1_0   EXIST:!EXPORT_VAR_AS_FUNCTION:VARIABLE:
> PBEPARAM_it                             1307    1_1_0   EXIST:EXPORT_VAR_AS_FUNCTION:FUNCTION:

As far as I know, this is a windows only thing.  For ELF files
everything is just a symbol.

Anyway, from what I understand, it should be a harmless warning,
those variables should be read only and be in the .data.rel.ro
section.  But for some reason the solaris linker wants to make a
copy of it, so you'll end up with the same (read only) variable
twice.


Kurt

--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Erik Forsberg-11
support for attribute visibility is new in the studio 12.5 compiler
so there seems to be some incompatibility between cc and gcc now

>-- Original Message --
>
>On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 08:27:30PM -0700, Erik Forsberg wrote:
>>
>> just updated to developer studio 12.5 on Solaris 11.3
>> I see lot of warnings when linking OpenSSL 1.1
>> looking like these
>>
>>     link_app.solaris-shared
>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.: cc -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DNDEBUG -DOPENSSL_THREADS -DOPENSSL_NO_STATIC_ENGINE -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM
>> -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DPOLY1305_ASM -DOPENSSLDIR="/usr/local/ssl" -DENGINESDIR="/usr/local/lib/amd64/engines-1.1" -xc99 -m64 -xarch=gen
>> eric -xstrconst -DL_ENDIAN -xO5 -xdepend -xbuiltin -D_REENTRANT -DFILIO_H -mt -R /usr/local/lib/amd64 -o apps/openssl apps/app_rand.o apps/apps.o apps/asn1pars.o apps/ca.o apps/ciphers.o apps/cms.o apps/crl.o apps/c
>> rl2p7.o apps/dgst.o apps/dhparam.o apps/dsa.o apps/dsaparam.o apps/ec.o apps/ecparam.o apps/enc.o apps/engine.o apps/errstr.o apps/gendsa.o apps/genpkey.o apps/genrsa.o apps/nseq.o apps/ocsp.o apps/openssl.o apps/op
>> t.o apps/passwd.o apps/pkcs12.o apps/pkcs7.o apps/pkcs8.o apps/pkey.o apps/pkeyparam.o apps/pkeyutl.o apps/prime.o apps/rand.o apps/rehash.o apps/req.o apps/rsa.o apps/rsautl.o apps/s_cb.o apps/s_client.o apps/s_ser
>> ver.o apps/s_socket.o apps/s_time.o apps/sess_id.o apps/smime.o apps/speed.o apps/spkac.o apps/srp.o apps/ts.o apps/verify.o apps/version.o apps/x509.o -L. -lssl -L. -lcrypto -lresolv -lsocket -lnsl -ldl -lpthread
>> ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBEPARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
>> ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBE2PARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
>> ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBKDF2PARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
>
>I'm not sure why those symbols are marked as protected.  The only
>thing we seem to be doing with visibilit is this:
>./crypto/sparcv9cap.c:__attribute__ ((visibility("hidden")))
>
>And you're not on sparc.
>
>> seems the common thing here is that libcrypto.num does this, not sure what
>> the implied effect is, but seems contradictory to me, one line says export as function
>> the other one says ! (export as variable instead)
>>
>> PBEPARAM_it                             1307    1_1_0   EXIST:!EXPORT_VAR_AS_FUNCTION:VARIABLE:
>> PBEPARAM_it                             1307    1_1_0   EXIST:EXPORT_VAR_AS_FUNCTION:FUNCTION:
>
>As far as I know, this is a windows only thing.  For ELF files
>everything is just a symbol.
>
>Anyway, from what I understand, it should be a harmless warning,
>those variables should be read only and be in the .data.rel.ro
>section.  But for some reason the solaris linker wants to make a
>copy of it, so you'll end up with the same (read only) variable
>twice.
>
>
>Kurt
>
>--
>openssl-dev mailing list
>To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Erik Forsberg-11
the issue appears to be not in the compiler, but the newer Soalris linker (ld)
I switched back to using 12.4 compiler, issue went away BUT now the issue surfaces
if building OpenSSL using GCC. Some examples during the test suite

ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PKCS7_SIGNED_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PKCS7_SIGN_ENVELOPE_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PKCS7_SIGNER_INFO_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PKCS8_PRIV_KEY_INFO_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PKEY_USAGE_PERIOD_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol POLICY_CONSTRAINTS_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol POLICYINFO_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol POLICY_MAPPING_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol POLICY_MAPPINGS_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol POLICYQUALINFO_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PROXY_CERT_INFO_EXTENSION_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PROXY_POLICY_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol RSA_OAEP_PARAMS_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol RSAPrivateKey_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol RSA_PSS_PARAMS_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol RSAPublicKey_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol SXNET_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol SXNETID_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol USERNOTICE_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_ALGOR_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_ALGORS_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_ATTRIBUTE_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_CERT_AUX_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_CINF_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_CRL_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_CRL_INFO_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_EXTENSION_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_EXTENSIONS_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_NAME_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_NAME_ENTRY_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_PUBKEY_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_REQ_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_REQ_INFO_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_REVOKED_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_SIG_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol X509_VAL_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
ld: warning: relocation warning: R_386_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol ZLONG_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility


>-- Original Message --
>
>support for attribute visibility is new in the studio 12.5 compiler
>so there seems to be some incompatibility between cc and gcc now
>
>>-- Original Message --
>>
>>On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 08:27:30PM -0700, Erik Forsberg wrote:
>>>
>>> just updated to developer studio 12.5 on Solaris 11.3
>>> I see lot of warnings when linking OpenSSL 1.1
>>> looking like these
>>>
>>>     link_app.solaris-shared
>>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.: cc -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DNDEBUG -DOPENSSL_THREADS -DOPENSSL_NO_STATIC_ENGINE -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM
>>> -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DPOLY1305_ASM -DOPENSSLDIR="/usr/local/ssl" -DENGINESDIR="/usr/local/lib/amd64/engines-1.1" -xc99 -m64 -xarch=gen
>>> eric -xstrconst -DL_ENDIAN -xO5 -xdepend -xbuiltin -D_REENTRANT -DFILIO_H -mt -R /usr/local/lib/amd64 -o apps/openssl apps/app_rand.o apps/apps.o apps/asn1pars.o apps/ca.o apps/ciphers.o apps/cms.o apps/crl.o apps/c
>>> rl2p7.o apps/dgst.o apps/dhparam.o apps/dsa.o apps/dsaparam.o apps/ec.o apps/ecparam.o apps/enc.o apps/engine.o apps/errstr.o apps/gendsa.o apps/genpkey.o apps/genrsa.o apps/nseq.o apps/ocsp.o apps/openssl.o apps/op
>>> t.o apps/passwd.o apps/pkcs12.o apps/pkcs7.o apps/pkcs8.o apps/pkey.o apps/pkeyparam.o apps/pkeyutl.o apps/prime.o apps/rand.o apps/rehash.o apps/req.o apps/rsa.o apps/rsautl.o apps/s_cb.o apps/s_client.o apps/s_ser
>>> ver.o apps/s_socket.o apps/s_time.o apps/sess_id.o apps/smime.o apps/speed.o apps/spkac.o apps/srp.o apps/ts.o apps/verify.o apps/version.o apps/x509.o -L. -lssl -L. -lcrypto -lresolv -lsocket -lnsl -ldl -lpthread
>>> ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBEPARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
>>> ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBE2PARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
>>> ld: warning: relocation warning: R_AMD64_COPY: file ./libcrypto.so: symbol PBKDF2PARAM_it: relocation bound to a symbol with STV_PROTECTED visibility
>>
>>I'm not sure why those symbols are marked as protected.  The only
>>thing we seem to be doing with visibilit is this:
>>./crypto/sparcv9cap.c:__attribute__ ((visibility("hidden")))
>>
>>And you're not on sparc.
>>
>>> seems the common thing here is that libcrypto.num does this, not sure what
>>> the implied effect is, but seems contradictory to me, one line says export as function
>>> the other one says ! (export as variable instead)
>>>
>>> PBEPARAM_it                             1307    1_1_0   EXIST:!EXPORT_VAR_AS_FUNCTION:VARIABLE:
>>> PBEPARAM_it                             1307    1_1_0   EXIST:EXPORT_VAR_AS_FUNCTION:FUNCTION:
>>
>>As far as I know, this is a windows only thing.  For ELF files
>>everything is just a symbol.
>>
>>Anyway, from what I understand, it should be a harmless warning,
>>those variables should be read only and be in the .data.rel.ro
>>section.  But for some reason the solaris linker wants to make a
>>copy of it, so you'll end up with the same (read only) variable
>>twice.
>>
>>
>>Kurt
>>
>>--
>>openssl-dev mailing list
>>To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
>
>--
>openssl-dev mailing list
>To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Andy Polyakov-2
> the issue appears to be not in the compiler, but the newer Soalris linker (ld)
> I switched back to using 12.4 compiler, issue went away BUT now the issue surfaces
> if building OpenSSL using GCC. Some examples during the test suite

What I was going to comment before I've read this message was that there
used to be only one linker on Solaris. I.e. both gnu and vendor
compilers use same linker, so that you can't formally say "there seems
to be incompatibility between cc and gcc" implying that they use own
linkers. It's just one or another drives same linker crazy.

In either case. There seem to be Solaris issues popping up that I can't
reproduce. My installation is not fancy (for example I don't have vendor
compiler), but it worked at every occasion I've tested. As there
apparently are Oracle people on the list, I'd suggest they step up and
give us a hand sorting out things.

--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Erik Forsberg-11
I went back to the 12.4 compiler which works very well, waste of my time
to debug Oracle compiler, as we wont see any patches released anyway (no support here)

>-- Original Message --
>
>> the issue appears to be not in the compiler, but the newer Soalris linker (ld)
>> I switched back to using 12.4 compiler, issue went away BUT now the issue surfaces
>> if building OpenSSL using GCC. Some examples during the test suite
>
>What I was going to comment before I've read this message was that there
>used to be only one linker on Solaris. I.e. both gnu and vendor
>compilers use same linker, so that you can't formally say "there seems
>to be incompatibility between cc and gcc" implying that they use own
>linkers. It's just one or another drives same linker crazy.
>
>In either case. There seem to be Solaris issues popping up that I can't
>reproduce. My installation is not fancy (for example I don't have vendor
>compiler), but it worked at every occasion I've tested. As there
>apparently are Oracle people on the list, I'd suggest they step up and
>give us a hand sorting out things.
>
>--
>openssl-dev mailing list
>To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Andy Polyakov-2
> I went back to the 12.4 compiler which works very well, waste of my time
> to debug Oracle compiler, as we wont see any patches released anyway (no support here)

And I installed vendor compiler, 12.5, and I don't observe linker
warnings...

On related note one should probably point out that x86[_64] compilation
with vendor compiler leaves out AVX and Broadwell code paths. This means
that you won't get adequate performance on latest hardware. But gcc
build should work with application compiled with vendor compiler, so why
not adhere to just that? I mean build OpenSSL with gcc and your
application with compiler of your choice, be it gcc or any particular
vendor compiler version.

--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Erik Forsberg-11

>-- Original Message --
>
>> I went back to the 12.4 compiler which works very well, waste of my time
>> to debug Oracle compiler, as we wont see any patches released anyway (no support here)
>
>And I installed vendor compiler, 12.5, and I don't observe linker
>warnings...

   interesting, can I ask which Solaris version you were running ?
   I was running 11.3 (no SRU's), so still concerned this might
   come back when Solaris 12 ships

>
>On related note one should probably point out that x86[_64] compilation
>with vendor compiler leaves out AVX and Broadwell code paths. This means
>that you won't get adequate performance on latest hardware. But gcc
>build should work with application compiled with vendor compiler, so why
>not adhere to just that? I mean build OpenSSL with gcc and your
>application with compiler of your choice, be it gcc or any particular
>vendor compiler version.
>

   I may do that. I wasnt aware that AVX/Broadwell didnt build with cc (64-bit)
   I was aware of lack of 32-bit asm support, so my 32-bit builds were using gcc
   Thanks for looking.


--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: weird linker warnings on solaris 11

Andy Polyakov-2
>>> I went back to the 12.4 compiler which works very well, waste of my time
>>> to debug Oracle compiler, as we wont see any patches released anyway (no support here)
>>
>> And I installed vendor compiler, 12.5, and I don't observe linker
>> warnings...
>
>    interesting, can I ask which Solaris version you were running ?
>    I was running 11.3 (no SRU's), so still concerned this might
>    come back when Solaris 12 ships

11.3 too. But probably more relevant question is what is your *linker*
version. Question is more or less rhetorical, because I'm not in
position to draw any conclusions based on particular version number. I
can only state that I myself get 5.11-1.2458 in reply to 'ld -V'. Though
it might be worth noting that cc calls /usr/ccs/bin/ld, while gcc -
/usr/bin/ld. But in my case these two are identical (though not hard- or
sym-linked).

>> On related note one should probably point out that x86[_64] compilation
>> with vendor compiler leaves out AVX and Broadwell code paths. This means
>> that you won't get adequate performance on latest hardware. But gcc
>> build should work with application compiled with vendor compiler, so why
>> not adhere to just that? I mean build OpenSSL with gcc and your
>> application with compiler of your choice, be it gcc or any particular
>> vendor compiler version.
>>
>
>    I may do that. I wasnt aware that AVX/Broadwell didnt build with cc (64-bit)
>    I was aware of lack of 32-bit asm support, so my 32-bit builds were using gcc
>    Thanks for looking.

To be completely accurate it boils down to *assembler* rather than
compiler. If gcc used vendor assembler, /usr/ccs/bin/as, then
AVX/Broadwell code would be left out too. But fortunately gcc available
from Oracle repository uses /usr/gnu/bin/as, and version I have is
2.23.1, which is sufficient for AVX1, AVX2 and Broadwell.

--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev