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

Re: GCC 3.2 on the NetBSD/i386 port



On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:06:51AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:10:08AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:18:01AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > > Joel Baker <lucifer@lightbearer.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > # of expected passes            5176
> > > > # of unexpected failures        1114
> > > > # of expected failures          977
> > > > # of untested testcases         15
> > > > # of unsupported tests          3
> > > 
> > > Those you should look at, first. gcc creates a detailed log file of
> > > all test cases; I don't know whether this survives the Debian build
> > > process, though - it's in <objdir>/gcc/testsuite. If you still have
> > > that, please post the details for three or four failures (preferably
> > > those that make up the majority of the 1000 failures).
> > 
> > It does not appear to have survived the build process. However, see the
> > further notes below.
> 
> Still broken. However, this time, I have log output - and it makes some
> amount of sense to me.
> 
> /tmp/Build/gcc-3.2/gcc-3.2-3.2ds0/build/i386-unknown-netbsdelf1.6./libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.so: undefined reference to `__dso_handle'
> /tmp/Build/gcc-3.2/gcc-3.2-3.2ds0/build/i386-unknown-netbsdelf1.6./libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.so: undefined reference to `__cxa_atexit'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> 
> I'm not sure about __dso_handle, but I clearly remember having to tweak a
> rules.def setting related to atexit in GCC 3.0 and 3.1, and I don't see it
> anywhere obvious in 3.2 - and it's explicitly enabled in debian/rules2.

Forcibly turning off --enable-__cxa_atexit appears to resolve this set of
failures. There are still some other relatively serious ones, but they
appear to be run-failures rather than compile failures, for the most part
(though libjava appears to have a few compiler segfaults and other lovely
gems).

So. Given that this clearly appears to be a workaround, that this was in
3.0 or 3.1, and that it must have been removed for good reason (like, it
was itself a workaround to a different flaw) - what is the best way to
address this? Is there something in userland that can be tweaked to cope
with this, or is this an issue with using NetBSD's libc?
-- 
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Attachment: pgppWQNsMK47I.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: