Looks like similar to #862360? According to https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=terminix&arch=armhf the last 3 failures are only on hartmann
S Le 23/05/2017 à 10:16, Matthias Klumpp a écrit : > Cc Sylvestre Ledru as he maintains LLVM and might know best about > changes done in the LLVM toolchain in Debian. > > I uploaded an LDC to unstable yesterday with no changes but it's LLVM > dependency changed to build against LLVM 4.0. With that version, the > bug did not happen at all on the buildds. > To be really certain it was gone, I used the harris porterbox again to > see if it compiles the exact version of Terminix correctly now, and > indeed it does. > Then, I tried to build Terminix with the exact LDC version from > Stretch before, and the bug also didn't show (4 builds in a row, just > to be sure - the bug did *always* happen on harris before). I had a > manually compiled version of LDC on that machine still, from previous > attempts to debug the issue, that was compiled with LLVM 3.8 last, and > building with that also didn't show the bug anymore. > > So, LDC 1.1.1 built with LLVM 3.8, 3.9 and 4.0 in Stretch and Sid does > not actually show this bug anymore. When jcristau removed LDC from > Stretch (yes, I am still not happy with the amount of > non-communication that was going on here!), the copy in there was > actually already working, because something else in the toolchain > changed and resolved the issue. > > So, this of course might be a bug in LDC that now just doesn't get > triggered anymore because something else has changed, but given the > amount of work put in this bug to find the issue in LDC and the code > where this bug actually happens in LDC, I think it's justified to > assume that this is not actually a bug in LDC at all. > > So, what's broken? LLVM 3.9 and 3.8 in Stretch received changes > lately, but I do fail to see anything in the changelog that would have > impacted this bug at all: > > ``` > llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-8) unstable; urgency=medium > > * Really fix "use versioned symbols" for llvm > Thanks to Julien Cristau for the patch (Closes: #849098) > > -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylves...@debian.org> Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:10:10 +0200 > > llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-7) unstable; urgency=medium > > * Limit the archs where the ocaml binding is built > Should fix the FTBFS > Currently amd64 arm64 armel armhf i386 > > -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylves...@debian.org> Sat, 15 Apr 2017 12:03:30 +0200 > > llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-6) unstable; urgency=medium > > * Upload in unstable > * Bring back ocaml. Thanks to Cyril Soldani (Closes: #858626) > > -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylves...@debian.org> Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:02:03 +0200 > > llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-6~exp2) experimental; urgency=medium > > * Add override_dh_makeshlibs for the libllvm or liblldb versions > Thanks to Julien Cristau for the patch > * change the min version of the libclang1 symbols to 1:3.9.1-6~ > * Fix the symlink on scan-build-py > > -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylves...@debian.org> Tue, 28 Mar 2017 06:32:40 +0200 > > llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-6~exp1) experimental; urgency=medium > > [ Rebecca N. Palmer ] > * Allow '!pointer' in OpenCL (Closes: #857623) > * Add missing liblldb symlink (Closes: #857683) > * Use versioned symbols (Closes: #848368) > > -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylves...@debian.org> Sun, 19 Mar 2017 10:12:03 +0100 > > llvm-toolchain-3.9 (1:3.9.1-5) unstable; urgency=medium > > * Fix the incorrect symlink to scan-build-py (Closes: #856869) > > -- Sylvestre Ledru <sylves...@debian.org> Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:01:10 +0100 > ``` > > There were also GCC updates, and quite a bit of other stuff has > changed as well, but since LDC now compiles the code correctly without > being recompiled itself, I think it's safe to rule out any bug in GCC > (as that's only used to build the C++ parts of LDC, and a > wrong-codegen bug would have persisted in the binaries). > > Not exactly sure where to go from here, but unless some major > revelation about this bug happens, I am very inclined to just close it > in a few weeks (and in case something like this happens again, we can > file a new bug). > > @Sylvestre: I know it's a long shot, but do you maybe know about > anything in LLVM that could have altered the codegen in any way, > recently in Stretch? From the changelogs, it doesn't really look like > it, but maybe I am missing something. Context on this bug: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=857085#41 > > Cheers, > Matthias >
