Re: Bug#1004894: sudo: [i386] invalid opcode
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:45 PM Martin-Éric Racine
<martin-eric.racine@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:39 PM Marc Haber
> <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:32:58PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:30 PM Marc Haber
> > > <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:23:40PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > > The Geode LX is not a vanilla 586. It is a vanilla 686. The reported
> > > > > CPU variant has simply remained at 586 for reasons only known to AMD.
> > > >
> > > > According to all docs available to me, it is a vanilla 686 sans
> > > > multi-byte NOP ("NOPL").
> > >
> > > That's correct. No PAE and no NOPL.
> >
> > The only piece of evidence I have is that:
> >
> > - Debian explicitly mentioned NOPL-less i686 processors as being
> > supported in stretch AND
> > - this mention vanishing in buster and bullseye
> >
> > Not being a native speaker of English, is there any other possible
> > interpretation of this removal than the retraction of support for
> > NOPL-less i686 processors?
>
> Possibly. Dropping support for non-PAE i686 has been randomly
> discussed on mailing lists. However, the base kernel on i386 still is
> configured for a Geode LX.
>
> > I have never seen Debian issue release notes like "the frobnication
> > processor is no longer supported", and i386 being the former mainstream
> > architecture, there is no explicit porter group to talk to.
>
> That's incorrect. Every now and then, architectures drop support for
> earlier CPU variants and that tends to be mentioned in the release
> notes.
>
> > I am afraid that my time resources are limited. If you want continued
> > action on this but report, please talk to the gcc and/or linux
> > maintainers in Debian and have them tell me that the Geode LX is still
> > supported.
>
> In CC.
FYI, I reported this upstream at:
https://github.com/sudo-project/sudo/issues/140
Upstream commented that this seems to really be a GCC issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104713
The GCC bug report refers to this Debian bug as an example of what
this GCC bug causes.
Martin-Éric
Reply to: