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

Re: gcc segfault when building libvirt

On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 12:02:21PM +0200, Guido Günther wrote:
> Hi ia64 porters,
> i'd be great if you could look at this build failure for libvirt since
> it keeps libvirt out of wheezy:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libvirt&arch=ia64&ver=0.9.2-6&stamp=1309770813
> #	source='mktime.c' object='mktime.lo' libtool=yes 
> /bin/bash ../../libtool  --tag=CC   --mode=compile gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../..     -g -O2 -g -O2 -Wall -c -o mktime.lo mktime.c
> libtool: compile:  gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -g -O2 -g -O2 -Wall -c mktime.c  -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/mktime.o
> mktime.c: In function 'guess_time_tm':
> mktime.c:299: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
> Please submit a full bug report,
> with preprocessed source if appropriate.
> See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.4/README.Bugs> for instructions.
> make[5]: *** [mktime.lo] Error 1
> make[5]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> libtool: compile:  gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -g -O2 -g -O2 -Wall -c md5.c -o md5.o >/dev/null 2>&1
> make[5]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd-libvirt_0.9.2-6-ia64-JbwR_p/libvirt-0.9.2/gnulib/lib'
> make[4]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[4]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd-libvirt_0.9.2-6-ia64-JbwR_p/libvirt-0.9.2/gnulib/lib'
> make[3]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd-libvirt_0.9.2-6-ia64-JbwR_p/libvirt-0.9.2/gnulib/lib'
> make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd-libvirt_0.9.2-6-ia64-JbwR_p/libvirt-0.9.2'
> make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/buildd-libvirt_0.9.2-6-ia64-JbwR_p/libvirt-0.9.2'
> make: *** [debian/stamp-makefile-build] Error 2
> dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2

fyi, I tried to reproduce it but it built fine for me - and the last
buildd failure failed, but for a reason other than an ICE.

lamont, can you retry this one?

Reply to: