Bug#108663: Help with bug #108663
> changes in the system include files which affected the result?
I thought that too, so I put features.h.orig back ontop of features.h.
And it still kept compiling. So I thought, I must have modified
the original back too. No problem, I'm compiling glibc, I have the
source lying around. diff'd features.h against 2.2.4-1 and
2.2.3-9 and came back with nothing... the file is original.
Which really wigged me out :)
> The most confusing part of this is that everything works fine on i386, and
> features.h is exactly the same between 2.2.4-2/i386 (my system) and
> 2.2.3-9/hppa (paer). Same goes for netinet/udp.h. sys/cdefs.h only differs
> inside a comment block. So I think I'm inclined to blame g++, and I'm going
> to reassign the bug there until I figure out what else to do.
Now that you mention it. It probably looks more and more like a g++ bug.
I can't compile that test program with gcc or g++. However, since my
results _seem_ to be tainted, I'll run through them again this morning.
I'll get back to you in the afternoon.
> Which version of libc6-dev were you running on your test system? I had been
> using paer, which has 2.2.3-9 installed.
I was using the latest apt-get dist-upgrade'd version, which is 2.2.3-9.
Incidentally the last version that compiles on hppa.
> If you don't mind publicizing it, could you send a copy of your analysis to
> firstname.lastname@example.org? I'm not copying this message there because I'm
> quoting your text; if you don't mind, I'd like to send this message there as
> well, to help others in tracking down the problem
I'll do a proper bug report when I get into the office.
- libc version
- gcc version
- ld version
Test basic program with _BSD_SOURCE (gcc and g++)
Test with #undef _BSD_SOURCE (gcc and g++)
Outline previous description.
Test it on 712/60 and 715/50.
Email to email@example.com