Re: Bug#218980: parted: FTBFS : probably due to new glibc and 2.6.0-test linux kernel headers.
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:00:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 12:02:05PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > I am a bit at a loss on how to solve this problem though. I guess it is
> > > > trying to do a sizeof(size_t) which is the cause of the first
> > > > problem, and that it is trying to compare sizeof(t) with (1 << _IOC_SIZEBITS)
> > > > which is the cause of the second error. Or maybe the second error is
> > > > because the result of sizeof(t) is unsigned while
> > > > __invalid_size_argument_for_IOC is not.
> > >
> > > This macro is there to ensure that people don't use size_t, I thought.
> > > I'd have to read the discussion on LKML again though.
> > The problem is that it is not people who use the size_t macro, but the
> > linux-kernel-headers themselves.
> > Any new on this, it is really a pain to have, since i can't thus
> > continue working on parted and at the same time upgrade my system.
> > Also, it totally breaks building parted, and i feel that it should
> > have a priority higher than it has now, not sure though.
> > Anyway, is there anyway i can help on this, so that it gets solved ?
> Mmm, after reading some LKML threads about this, it seems that the patch
> mentioned here : http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/9/30/286 is the one causing
> all these problems, and that it was appliead without being fully tested
> or something.
> Apparently, the reason for this patch is for cases where the kernel runs
> in 64bit mode, but the apps are 32bit ones.
> I will continue looking at this, but i would love to get some
> information back from the glibc maintainers too.
Well, how about you at least post a preprocessed test case?
sizeof(size_t) should not be a parse error unless you've failed to
include something which defines size_t.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer