Bug#336022: marked as done (gcc-2.95: kernel 2.4.31 won't compile)
Your message dated Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:15:49 +0100
with message-id <20051116131549.GN5615@hattusa.textio>
and subject line Bug#336022: this is actually binutils bug
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Oct 2005 13:13:47 +0000
>From zaphodb@zaphods.net Thu Oct 27 06:13:47 2005
Return-path: <zaphodb@zaphods.net>
Received: from mout2.freenet.de [194.97.50.155]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EV7Zj-0001zk-00; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:13:47 -0700
Received: from [194.97.50.135] (helo=mx2.freenet.de)
by mout2.freenet.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.53-RC2)
id 1EV7Zh-0008NN-Et
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:13:45 +0200
Received: from ns1.free-net.net ([62.104.64.8] helo=lo)
by mx2.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 4.54 #12)
id 1EV7Zf-0004DQ-1B
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:13:45 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stefan Schmidt <zaphodb@zaphods.net>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: gcc-2.95: kernel 2.4.31 won't compile
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.17
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:12:54 +0200
Message-Id: <E1EV7Zj-0001zk-00@spohr.debian.org>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-22
Severity: normal
make bzImage CC=gcc-2.95
..
make CFLAGS="-D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.31/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 " -C arch/i386/kernel
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.31/arch/i386/kernel'
gcc-2.95 -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.31/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -nostdinc -iwithprefix include -DKBUILD_BASENAME=process -c -o process.o process.c
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}:853: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:854: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:947: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:948: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:1006: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:1007: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:1009: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
{standard input}:1021: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `mov'
make[1]: *** [process.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.4.31/arch/i386/kernel'
make: *** [_dir_arch/i386/kernel] Error 2
I also found someone reporting this error on debian-users ML.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.13.4
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Versions of packages gcc-2.95 depends on:
ii binutils 2.16.1cvs20050902-1 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii cpp-2.95 1:2.95.4-22 The GNU C preprocessor
ii libc6 2.3.5-7 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
Versions of packages gcc-2.95 recommends:
ii libc6-dev [libc-dev] 2.3.5-7 GNU C Library: Development Librari
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 336022-done) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Nov 2005 13:16:32 +0000
>From ths@networkno.de Wed Nov 16 05:16:32 2005
Return-path: <ths@networkno.de>
Received: from mx01.qsc.de ([213.148.129.14])
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1EcN9M-0005rL-0N
for 336022-done@bugs.debian.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 05:16:32 -0800
Received: from port-195-158-167-39.dynamic.qsc.de ([195.158.167.39] helo=hattusa.textio)
by mx01.qsc.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
id 1EcN8p-0007Eb-00; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:15:59 +0100
Received: from ths by hattusa.textio with local (Exim 4.54)
id 1EcN8f-0003cU-Rl; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:15:49 +0100
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:15:49 +0100
To: Stefan Schmidt <zaphodb@zaphods.net>
Cc: Sheplyakov Alexei <varg@theor.jinr.ru>, 336022-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#336022: this is actually binutils bug
Message-ID: <20051116131549.GN5615@hattusa.textio>
References: <E1EV7Zj-0001zk-00@spohr.debian.org> <[🔎] 20051116120426.GA18345@theor.jinr.ru> <[🔎] 20051116123038.GM5615@hattusa.textio> <[🔎] 20051116125447.GH19097@zaphods.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20051116125447.GH19097@zaphods.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:30:39PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > I've seen such an error too. I don't think this is gcc-2.95 bug, since
> > > gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 fail with the same error message.
> > > This is binutils (version 2.16.1cvs20050902-1 and newer) bug (feature?).
> > > With binutils from testing (version 2.16.1-2) it is possible to compile
> > > the kernel with any gcc version (2.95, 3.3, 3.4).
> >
> > Binutils tightened on ix86 the checks for potentially invalid operands
> > recently, thus, without having looked at the code, I'm inclined to claim
> > this is a problem in kernel 2.4.31.
>
> Ah yes, i reported it against gcc.2-95 because i was previously unable to
> compile 2.4.31-rc1 with gcc4 and Adrian Bunk told me that gcc4 is not
> supported with kernel 2.4 so i tried 2.95, you know the rest of the story... ;)
> -> http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5478
Ok, I'm closing this bug then.
Thiemo
Reply to: