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

Re: Bug#584610: [mips] gcc-4.4 build failure after upgrade to eGLIBC-2.11

Matthias Klose a écrit :
> On 06.06.2010 00:51, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 03:50:51AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> Package: eGLIBC
>>> Version: 2.11.1-2
>>> Severity: serious
>>> gcc-4.4 and gcc-4.5 fail to build after the upgrade to eGLIBC-2.11:
>>> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gcc-4.4;ver=4.4.4-4;arch=mips;stamp=1275677666
>> This FTBFS is caused by the following change:
>> |2009-11-20  Jakub Jelinek<jakub@redhat.com>
>> |
>> |        PR libc/10103
>> |
>> |        * math/math.h: Provide *l long double prototypes redirecting
>> |        to double functions even when __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH and not
>> |        __LDBL_COMPAT.
>> |        * math/complex.h: Likewise.
>> These functions were present before in the library, but not exported
>> in the headers. This has been changed as it is required by ISO C99.
>> GCC tries to find these functions in the GLIBC by compiling a program,
>> so it was failing before, and is successful now. When they are already
>> present in the GLIBC it does not re-export them.
>> Strangely this should also affect ARM, but it seems to build correctly.
>> I haven't investigated why.
>> While these functions are strictly not needed in libstdc++6 anymore, we
>> have two options:
>> - revert the GLIBC change, which means we break the C99 compatibility
>>    (as before)
>> - patch GCC to export these functions anyway.
>> What's your opinion?
> For ARM I did choose the second option, but didn't get any feedback about it. 
> So maybe it's time to ask the mips and arm porters?
> The patch applied for armel is:
> http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/gcccvs/branches/sid/gcc-4.4/debian/patches/libstdc%2B%2B-arm-ldbl-compat.diff?view=log

I think we should go for the same patch on mips, it's probably better to
be ISO C99 compliant on the glibc side.

Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Reply to: