On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:45:30PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 21:25 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > 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 asked Richard and he said that mainline GCC now allows the "i" > constraint with a symbol, with an asm. So it shouldn't produce an error. > What error are you seeing? > > stap might not know how to interpret such SDT ELF notes. Since systemtap > is not known to work on alpha (I don't know for other SDT consumers like > gdb and perf). But that would be independent of building with sys/sdt.h. > So unless I misunderstood him things should compile fine, even if you > decided to keep sys/sdt.h enabled for the glibc build on alpha. > > Of course, if none of the SDT consumers are known to work on alpha then > having them might just be a noop and it should also be fine to disable > them on that platform if you wish. But I don't think that is necessary.
I don't have access to an alpha machine. Michael, could you please confirm that the patch from PR61336 does remove the ICE, but in addition allow the file to be compiled? > > 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. > > As far as I know it builds fine everywhere (modulo any GCC bugs). At > least I have personally seen it work fine on x86, x86_64, arm, aarch64, > ppc, ppc64 and s390. I have no experience with other arches. But if any > arch wouldn't work, then that is a bug that should be fixed of course. Ok, thanks. -- 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
