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

Re: failed sparc build of mksh 40.2-3

Hi sparc (and sparc64, same issue) porters!

>Debian buildds dixit:
>> * Source package: mksh
>> * Version: 40.2-3
>> * Architecture: sparc
>> * State: failed
>> * Suite: sid
>> * Builder: lebrun.debian.org
>> * Build log: https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=mksh&arch=sparc&ver=40.2-3&stamp=1319590758&file=log

The problem being:

>+ gcc -g -O2 -fPIE -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat -Wformat-security -Werror=format-security -Wall -Wextra -fno-strict-aliasing -fstack-protector-all -fwrapv -flto=jobserver -std=gnu99 -fPIE -pie -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,-z,now -fuse-linker-plugin -o mksh lalloc.o edit.o eval.o exec.o expr.o funcs.o histrap.o jobs.o lex.o main.o misc.o shf.o syn.o tree.o var.o strlcpy.o printf.o
>edit.o (symbol from plugin): warning: memset used with constant zero length parameter; this could be due to transposed parameters
>`__sparc_get_pc_thunk.l7' referenced in section `.text' of /tmp/ccwb0C7i.ltrans12.ltrans.o: defined in discarded section `.text.__sparc_get_pc_thunk.l7.2988[__sparc_get_pc_thunk.l7.2988]' of /tmp/ccwb0C7i.ltrans12.ltrans.o
>`__sparc_get_pc_thunk.l7' referenced in section `.text' of /tmp/ccwb0C7i.ltrans26.ltrans.o: defined in discarded section `.text.__sparc_get_pc_thunk.l7.2613[__sparc_get_pc_thunk.l7.2613]' of /tmp/ccwb0C7i.ltrans26.ltrans.o
>collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

This looks like a toolchain (binutils?) issue to me,
probably from either +pie or +bindnow hardening flags
being introduced into the package. I’ve asked doko
whether he’s seen something like this already, but
maybe one of you’s got an idea too, before I try to
investigate this on a porterbox.

Now that I see it… might also be a GCC issue, recalling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16625 but
that was years ago, and COMDAT support shouldn’t have
become missing… anyway if it’s a known issue I’d like
to know.

FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much
*much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of
ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't
wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh

Reply to: