[Mesa-stable] [PATCH] Android: Fix LLVM duplicated symbols linking for N and M

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 August 2017 at 17:17, Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 18 August 2017 at 20:46, Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> Both statically linking libLLVMCore and dynamically linking libLLVM causes
>>>> duplicated symbols in gallium_dri.so and it fails to dlopen. We don't
>>>> really need to link libLLVMCore, but just need generated headers to be
>>>> built first. Dynamically linking to libLLVM instead is enough to do
>>>> that. Thanks to Qiang Yu for finding the root cause.
>>>>
>>> Nice find indeed, thanks.
>>>
>>> This reminds me - a small task for a rainy day.
>>> - Wire the version script files into the Android build - see the
>>> autoconf snippet below.
>>> It will hide the hundreds of symbols when static linking LLVM (aka
>>> sidestep the current issue) and make the binary noticeably smaller.
>>>
>>> gallium_dri_la_LDFLAGS += \
>>>        -Wl,--version-script=$(top_srcdir)/src/gallium/targets/dri/dri.sym
>>
>> About 60K smaller out of 12MB. Is that inline with what you'd expect?
>>
> Sounds a bit smaller than expected, but every little helps ;-)
>
>> before:
>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>> 12164054         420384  352476 12936914         c566d2
>> out/target/product/linaro_x86_64/system/lib64/dri/gallium_dri.so
>>
>> after:
>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>> 12104616         419816  352476 12876908         c47c6c
>> out/target/product/linaro_x86_64/system/lib64/dri/gallium_dri.so
>>
>>
>> The change is trivial, though I'm not sure if there's any downside to
>> setting --undefined-version (The Android build system turns this off).
>>
> There's no actual symbol versioning, just restriction of the actual
> exported symbols.
> Thus things should work w/o -Wl,--undefined-version so I wouldn't touch it.

No it doesn't, because it can't find __driDriverExtensions.

Rob