On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 01:06:44PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 11.06.2010 15:22, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >reassign 584610 gcc-4.4 > >tag 584610 + pending > >thanks > > > >On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 02:08:20PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >>Matthias Klose a écrit : > >>>On 06.06.2010 00:51, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >>>>On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 03:50:51AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>>>>Package: eGLIBC > >>>>>Version: 2.11.1-2 > >>>>>Severity: serious > >>>>> > >>>>>gcc-4.4 and gcc-4.5 fail to build after the upgrade to eGLIBC-2.11: > >>>>> > >>>>>https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gcc-4.4;ver=4.4.4-4;arch=mips;stamp=1275677666 > >>>>> > >>>>This FTBFS is caused by the following change: > >>>> > >>>>|2009-11-20 Jakub Jelinek<ja...@redhat.com> > >>>>| > >>>>| PR libc/10103 > >>>>| > >>>>| * math/math.h: Provide *l long double prototypes redirecting > >>>>| to double functions even when __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH and not > >>>>| __LDBL_COMPAT. > >>>>| * math/complex.h: Likewise. > >>>> > >>>>These functions were present before in the library, but not exported > >>>>in the headers. This has been changed as it is required by ISO C99. > >>>> > >>>>GCC tries to find these functions in the GLIBC by compiling a program, > >>>>so it was failing before, and is successful now. When they are already > >>>>present in the GLIBC it does not re-export them. > >>>> > >>>>Strangely this should also affect ARM, but it seems to build correctly. > >>>>I haven't investigated why. > >>>> > >>>>While these functions are strictly not needed in libstdc++6 anymore, we > >>>>have two options: > >>>>- revert the GLIBC change, which means we break the C99 compatibility > >>>> (as before) > >>>>- patch GCC to export these functions anyway. > >>>> > >>>>What's your opinion? > >>> > >>>For ARM I did choose the second option, but didn't get any feedback about > >>>it. > >>>So maybe it's time to ask the mips and arm porters? > >>> > >>>The patch applied for armel is: > >>>http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/gcccvs/branches/sid/gcc-4.4/debian/patches/libstdc%2B%2B-arm-ldbl-compat.diff?view=log > >>> > >> > >>I think we should go for the same patch on mips, it's probably better to > >>be ISO C99 compliant on the glibc side. > >> > > > >As we discussed, this bug has to be fixed on the gcc side. I have just > >checked-in a patch in the SVN to do that on both gcc-4.4 and gcc-4.5. > > > >I am therefore reassigning this bug on gcc-4.4 and tagging it pending. I > >don't think it is worth cloning this bug to gcc-4.5 as the bug is fixed > >in the SVN and the package is in experimental. > > proposed instead > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg01290.html > > Joseph Meyers suggested that the symbols should only be exported for > the old mips O32 ABI, not for the mips64 and n32 ABIs. >
Indeed the n32 and 64 ABIs do not export these symbols, so there is no need to add compat for them. It's something I should have verified. Do you want me to update the patch in the SVN or do you plan to introduce the patch you submitted to upstream instead? -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
