Re: glibc regression on alpha with 2.34+
Please remove my email from your mailing lIst!
Sent from my iPhone
> On 20 Nov 2022, at 12:48, Frank Scheiner <frank.scheiner@web.de> wrote:
>
> On 20.11.22 10:03, Michael Cree wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 12:45:17AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>> I just noticed that there is a regression in glibc on alpha with version 2.34 or later.
>>>
>>> Looking at the build logs for Debian's 2.34-8 [1], 2.35-4 [2] and 2.36-4 [3], it's obvious
>>> there is something wrong given the many "Segmentation Fault" errors.
>>>
>>> I had hoped I could fix this issue by passing "--disable-default-pie" like we already did
>>> on sparc64, but it seems it's not the same bug [4]. At least, this particular workaround
>>> does not help.
>>
>> Interestingly the vast number of the failing tests pass if one builds
>> with a compiler that raises the baseline to EV67. This has been
>> proposed a number of times in the past for the Debian distribution.
>> I think it is time we did it. One of our last EV56 users has recently
>> bowed out due to hardware failure and I am only running EV67 hardware.
>
> I still have the following pre EV67 machines available and in working order:
>
> * AXPpci 33 (LCA4)
> * AlphaStation 200 (EV4) / 255 (EV45) / 500 (EV56)
> * PWS 500au (EV56)
> * AlphaServer 800 (EV56)
>
> ...and can provide testing on them. All of them eventually ran Debian
> GNU/Linux Sid with up to Linux 5.x.x IIRC and I will also try them with
> 6.0.x. And I believe the majority of still exsiting, still working Alpha
> systems are pre EV67 systems.
>
> Given the fact that EV6[...] and EV7[...] based systems are nowadays
> very expensive for hobby use (I don't want to say unobtainium), I expect
> that dropping support for pre EV67 will kill off most of the user base
> for Debian on Alpha (and also Gentoo I assume).
>
> Phrasing it differently:
>
> Who needs a port that only runs on the buildds and a handful of
> (hobbyist) machines around the world (like ppc64le ;-))?
>
> My two cents.
>
> All the best,
> Frank
>
Reply to: