Bug#584610: [mips] gcc-4.4 build failure after upgrade to eGLIBC-2.11
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 01:06:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 11.06.2010 15:22, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >reassign 584610 gcc-4.4
> >tag 584610 + pending
> >thanks
> >
> >On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 02:08:20PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >>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.
> >>
> >
> >As we discussed, this bug has to be fixed on the gcc side. I have just
> >checked-in a patch in the SVN to do that on both gcc-4.4 and gcc-4.5.
> >
> >I am therefore reassigning this bug on gcc-4.4 and tagging it pending. I
> >don't think it is worth cloning this bug to gcc-4.5 as the bug is fixed
> >in the SVN and the package is in experimental.
>
> proposed instead
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01290.html
>
> Joseph Meyers suggested that the symbols should only be exported for
> the old mips O32 ABI, not for the mips64 and n32 ABIs.
>
Indeed the n32 and 64 ABIs do not export these symbols, so there is no
need to add compat for them. It's something I should have verified.
Do you want me to update the patch in the SVN or do you plan to
introduce the patch you submitted to upstream instead?
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: