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

Bug#990315: marked as done (buster-pu: package gcc-mingw-w64/21.3~deb10u1)

Your message dated Sat, 09 Oct 2021 12:11:43 +0100
with message-id <896b7609401ceb0e1c537222e26587ea2351415d.camel@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Closing bugs for fixes included in the 10.11 point release
has caused the Debian Bug report #990315,
regarding buster-pu: package gcc-mingw-w64/21.3~deb10u1
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.)


-- 
990315: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990315
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu

Dear release team,

Would it be possible to upload the backported fix for gcc-mingw-w64’s
#989862 to Buster? The debdiff is attached; it’s a minimal, targeted
fix for gcov support.

Regards,

Stephen


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 10.10
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable-debug'), (500, 'stable'), (100, 'unstable-debug'), (100, 'testing-debug'), (100, 'unstable'), (100, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386, arm64

Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-17-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

commit f319345c3caf1dedbfc87654e1853762af3b6d77
Author: Stephen Kitt <steve@sk2.org>
Date:   Tue Jun 15 22:18:31 2021 +0200

    Fix gcov handling
    
    When gcov is supported in a cross-compiler setup, GCC assumes that
    either the headers are present and shared with the host, or present
    and set up in a sysroot, or absent. We have headers which aren’t
    shared and aren’t in a sysroot, so we need to tell GCC where they are
    *without* specifying them as an argument to --with-headers (the latter
    must only be enabled).
    
    Closes: #989862
    LP: #1883933, #1920988
    (cherry picked from commit 2ee26ff4f275384aa6173ada884929db4d2f1bbf)

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 66834dc..7d18a47 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+gcc-mingw-w64 (21.3~deb10u2) buster; urgency=medium
+
+  * Fix gcov handling: we need to tell GCC that we have headers, without
+    telling it where, and then we need to correct its default assumption
+    about where they are. Closes: #989862. LP: #1883933, #1920988.
+
+ -- Stephen Kitt <skitt@debian.org>  Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:54:10 +0200
+
 gcc-mingw-w64 (21.3~deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium
 
   * Upload to Buster.
diff --git a/debian/patches/gcov.patch b/debian/patches/gcov.patch
index 4400d53..4e6a83e 100644
--- a/debian/patches/gcov.patch
+++ b/debian/patches/gcov.patch
@@ -1,10 +1,17 @@
-Description: Add __gcov_exit for gcov fallback
+Description: Fix gcov build issues
 Author: Stephen Kitt <skitt@debian.org>
 
 When gcov is not supported on the target, gcc uses a fallback
 do-nothing implementation. That’s missing a __gcov_exit()
 implementation, causing linking errors.
 
+When gcov is supported in a cross-compiler setup, GCC assumes that
+either the headers are present and shared with the host, or present
+and set up in a sysroot, or absent. We have headers which aren’t
+shared and aren’t in a sysroot, so we need to tell GCC where they are
+*without* specifying them as an argument to --with-headers (the latter
+must only be enabled).
+
 --- a/src/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c
 +++ b/src/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c
 @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
@@ -15,3 +22,14 @@ implementation, causing linking errors.
  #endif
  
  #else /* inhibit_libc */
+--- a/src/gcc/configure.ac
++++ b/src/gcc/configure.ac
+@@ -2268,7 +2268,7 @@
+   if test "x$with_build_sysroot" != "x"; then
+     target_header_dir="${with_build_sysroot}${native_system_header_dir}"
+   elif test "x$with_sysroot" = x; then
+-    target_header_dir="${test_exec_prefix}/${target_noncanonical}/sys-include"
++    target_header_dir="${test_exec_prefix}/${target_noncanonical}/include"
+   elif test "x$with_sysroot" = xyes; then
+     target_header_dir="${test_exec_prefix}/${target_noncanonical}/sys-root${native_system_header_dir}"
+   else
diff --git a/debian/patches/series1 b/debian/patches/series1
index 048c6bf..7a28c31 100644
--- a/debian/patches/series1
+++ b/debian/patches/series1
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
 disable-multilib.patch
 reproducible-sort.patch
 bug-55930.patch
+gcov.patch
diff --git a/debian/patches/series2 b/debian/patches/series2
index 53bd6d3..4cce23c 100644
--- a/debian/patches/series2
+++ b/debian/patches/series2
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
 reproducible-s-oscons.patch
-gcov.patch
 wc-file-streams.patch
 refactor-path-construction.patch
 win-std-filesystem.patch
diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
index e9e4416..4bbb4d1 100755
--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -187,9 +187,9 @@ CONFFLAGS = \
 	--libdir=/$(PF)/$(libdir) \
 	--enable-libstdcxx-time=yes \
 	--with-tune=generic
-# Tell GCC where the headers are (this enables gcov)
+# Tell GCC we have headers (this enables gcov)
 CONFFLAGS += \
-	--with-headers=/usr/$$target/include
+	--with-headers
 # MinGW-w64 flags
 # version-specific-runtime-libs puts target-specific libraries in
 # /usr/lib/gcc rather than /usr/$(target)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Version: 10.11

Hi,

The updates relating to these bugs were included in this morning's
10.11 point release for buster.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: