On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 08:10:00PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 18:02 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > systemtap-sdt-dev was supposed to be something transparent for the > > glibc, but in practice it causes build failure on at least on alpha (see > > above). Looking at the BTS, I see it also causes problems with GCC, so I > > am a bit concerned on other side effects we might haven't seen yet. > > Both issues were GCC bugs now fixed on mainline. See > https://gcc.gnu.org/PR61231 and http://gcc.gnu.org/PR61336. > The first one was not really related to sys/sdt.h at all. The second was > indeed a bug in GCC on alpha triggered by the usage of the "i" > constrained in the sys/sdt.h asm, now fixed.
I doesn't seems to be the case. PR61336 is about the sys/sdt.h code triggering an ICE, and it has indeed been fixed. That said it now emits an error instead of an ICE, so sys/sdt.h is still not usable on alpha, as the last comment says: | Richard Henderson 2014-06-02 16:47:20 UTC | The ICE has been resolved. | | Note that the asm in question comes from system tap, which has not been | ported to alpha. So you're probably better off disabling that in your | (e)glibc build too. I am therefore re-asking if you can provide a list of architectures where sys/sdt.h is known to work and doesn't have any issues. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
