tag 700760 - moreinfo close 700760 2.19-0experimental0 thanks On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 06:02:06PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > reopen 700760 > tag 700760 + moreinfo > clone 750996 > reassign -1 750996 systemtap-sdt-dev > retitle 750996 systemtap-sdt-dev: breaks eglibc build on alpha > block 700760 by 750996 > thanks > > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 10:13:05PM +1200, Michael Cree wrote: > > Source: eglibc > > Version: 2.19-1 > > Severity: important > > User: debian-al...@lists.debian.org > > Usertags: alpha > > Justification: fails to build from source but built in the past > > X-Debbugs-CC: debian-al...@lists.debian.org > > > > eglibc FTBFS on alpha for two reasons, firstly, due to the inclusion of > > systemtap headers and, secondly, because of what might be broken > > FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME support in the kernel. > > > > The systemtap header inclusion introduces an invalid unsplit symbol > > reference to global_max_fast in inline asm leading to a failure to compile > > malloc/malloc.c, which is the reason for the compiler ICE seen in the build > > log at: > > > > http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=eglibc&arch=alpha&ver=2.19-1&stamp=1401942698 > > > > The compiler ICE is now fixed in gcc upstream (PR target/61336) to a > > graceful error exit which won't help us in getting eglibc built on alpha. > > > > So my question: can we have the systemtap-sdt-dev build-dep removed from > > eglibc for a build on Alpha? (And what are the implications of that? > > Presumably nothing since even a number of official arches are not supported > > by systemtap?) > > 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. > > systemtap-sdt-dev was supposed to be arch:all to be able to be used on > all architecture, but in practice it doesn't seems to be the case. Could > you please to switch it back to a specific architecture list where it > actually works? In the meantime we are going to revert SDT support in > eglibc, thus reopening the bug.
As the problem has been solved at the GCC level, we are not going to revert the SDT changes in the next glibc upload. I am therefore closing bug#700760 again. -- 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
