Re: Bug#554574: libstdc++6: apt segfaults on hppa
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:52:36PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:44:25PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> wrote:
> > > Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
> > >> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> wrote:
> > >>>> On 05.11.2009 14:30, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > >>>>> frankly i do not know what to do next, besides trying to rebuild gcc-4.4
> > >>>>> 4.4.2-1 with latest eglibc to see if it is the culprit
> > >>>> or rebuild against eglibc-2.9. could you do this as a test?
> > >>> yes, build started
> > >>
> > >> the gcc 4.4.2-2 built with eglibc 2.9-25 has not the problem and current
> > >> gcc 4.4.2-1 is built with eglibc 2.9-26 [0]. should i try building
> > >> 4.4.2-1 with eglibc 2.10.1-5 or are we convinced it is NPTL?
> > >
> > > At least we are convinced it's eglibc 2.10.1, not 100% sure it is due to
> > > NPTL.
> > >
> > > I have done some more tests, showing it's a bit more complicated than
> > > that. apt-get from stable/testing/unstable:
> > > - works with libstdc++6 built against eglibc 2.9
> > > - segfaults with libstdc++6 built against eglibc 2.10.1
> > >
> > > Then I tried to rebuild apt against the "broken" libstdc++6.
> > > Surprisingly this new apt-get:
> > > - works with libstdc++6 built against eglibc 2.10.1
> > > - segfaults with libstdc++6 built against eglibc 2.9
> > >
> > > So in short, it seems that using eglibc 2.10.1 to build libstdc++6
> > > triggers an ABI change on this library. I haven't investigated more for
> > > now, I am not sure when I'll have time to do it.
> >
> > This is not surprising, Dave has already pointed out that the debian
> > libstdc++6 testsuite run clearly has an ABI failure e.g.
> > ~~~
> > FAIL: abi_check
> > ~~~
> >
>
> This test actually fails for both old and new version, I actually don't
> know for how long it fails.
>
I am wrong on that, I compared squeeze and sid versions, which both
fails. Here are the results for the last few versions:
4.4.1-4: fail (glibc 2.9) (squeeze)
4.4.1-5: fail (glibc 2.9)
4.4.1-6: fail (glibc 2.9)
4.4.2-1: pass (glibc 2.9)
4.4.2-2: fail (glibc 2.10) (sid)
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: