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

Bug#500293: marked as done (Cross-compile fails for latest GCC (4.3+) due to missing -lgcc_eh option in NPTL checking for forced unwind.)

Your message dated Tue, 10 May 2011 01:56:14 +0200
with message-id <20110509235613.GA20929@flaco.tsc-farm.upc.es>
and subject line Re: Bug#500293: Cross-compile fails for latest GCC (4.3+) due to missing -lgcc_eh option in NPTL checking for forced unwind.
has caused the Debian Bug report #500293,
regarding Cross-compile fails for latest GCC (4.3+) due to missing -lgcc_eh option in NPTL checking for forced unwind.
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
500293: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500293
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: glibc
Version: 2.7-13
Severity: normal
Tags: patch

The check for libgcc_eh.a is required in
 glibc/nptl/sysdeps/pthread/configure.in
and may it be even in
 glibc/configure.in

Next test fragment helps to solve problem

-------------------------------------------------
AC_CACHE_CHECK(whether to link against libgcc_eh,
               libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh, [
  cat > conftest.c <<EOF
int main (void) { return 0; }
EOF
  if ${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS -static -o conftest \
     conftest.c -v 2>&1 >/dev/null | grep -q " -lgcc_eh "; then
    libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh=yes
  else
    libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh=no
  fi
  rm -f conftest*])
AC_SUBST(libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh)
if test $libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh = yes; then
  AC_DEFINE(HAVE_CC_WITH_LIBGCC_EH)
  LIBS="$LIBS -lgcc_eh"
fi
-------------------------------------------------


-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.26 (SMP w/2 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

---
 nptl/sysdeps/pthread/configure |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)

Index: glibc-2.7/nptl/sysdeps/pthread/configure
===================================================================
--- glibc-2.7.orig/nptl/sysdeps/pthread/configure	2008-09-26 23:39:46.000000000 +0200
+++ glibc-2.7/nptl/sysdeps/pthread/configure	2008-09-27 00:01:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -23,6 +23,31 @@
   esac
 fi
 
+{ echo "$as_me:$LINENO: checking whether to link against libgcc_eh" >&5
+echo $ECHO_N "checking whether to link against libgcc_eh... $ECHO_C" >&6; }
+if test "${libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh+set}" = set; then
+  echo $ECHO_N "(cached) $ECHO_C" >&6
+else
+    cat > conftest.c <<EOF
+int main (void) { return 0; }
+EOF
+    if ${CC-cc} $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS -static -o conftest \
+       conftest.c -v 2>&1 >/dev/null | grep -q " -lgcc_eh "; then
+      libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh=yes
+    else
+      libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh=no
+    fi
+    rm -f conftest*
+fi
+{ echo "$as_me:$LINENO: result: $libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh" >&5
+echo "${ECHO_T}$libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh" >&6; }
+
+  if test $libc_cv_cc_with_libgcc_eh = yes; then
+    cat >>confdefs.h <<\_ACEOF
+#define HAVE_CC_WITH_LIBGCC_EH 1
+_ACEOF
+LIBS="$LIBS -lgcc_eh"
+fi
 
 { echo "$as_me:$LINENO: checking for forced unwind support" >&5
 echo $ECHO_N "checking for forced unwind support... $ECHO_C" >&6; }

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hello,

On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 02:04:57AM +0200, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> Package: glibc
> Version: 2.7-13

  I have been able to cross compile eglibc current.
  As this looks as an outdated bug, I close it.

  Feel free to reopen if the issue persists.

Best regards,
  -- Hector Oron

--- End Message ---
Reply to: