On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 05:40:51PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > On 02.03.2021 10:36, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 09:53:41AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >> On 02.03.2021 09:14, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > >>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 06:01:36PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > > >>>> On 01/03/2021 17:59, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > > >>>>> On 01/03/2021 09:58, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > > >>>>>> clang++ relies on the C++ headers installed by g++, or else a clang > > > >>>>>> build will hit the following error: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> <built-in>:3:10: fatal error: 'cstring' file not found > > > >>>>>> #include "cstring" > > > >>>>>> ^~~~~~~~~ > > > >>>>>> 1 error generated. > > > >>>>>> make[10]: *** [Makefile:120: headers++.chk] Error 1 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Reported-by: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]> > > > >>>>>> --- > > > >>>>>> Cc: Ian Jackson <[email protected]> > > > >>>>>> No real risk here from a release PoV, it's just pulling a package > > > >>>>>> required for the Alpine clang build. Worse that cold happen is that > > > >>>>>> the Alpine clang build broke, but it's already broken. > > > >>>>> Shouldn't this be fixed upstream in Alpine? Its clearly a > > > >>>>> packaging bug. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Or (thinking about it), we've got a build system bug using g++ when > > > >>>> it > > > >>>> should be using clang++. > > > >>> > > > >>> No, the check is using clang++, the issue is that clang++ doesn't > > > >>> install the standard c++ headers, and thus trying to use them (cstring > > > >>> in this case) fails. Installing the g++ package solves the issue > > > >>> because it installs the headers. > > > >> > > > >> I have to admit that I consider this odd. The g++ package should > > > >> neither provide nor depend on the headers. It may recommend their > > > >> installation. On my distro (SLES) the headers come from the > > > >> libstdc++-devel package, as I would have expected. There > > > >> additionally is a dependency of libclang5 (no -devel suffix!) on > > > >> libstdc++-devel (I suppose this is an indication that things > > > >> aren't quite right here either; I haven't checked an up-to-date > > > >> version of the distro yet, though). > > > > > > > > Yes, that was indeed my first attempt as I've tried to install > > > > libstdc++, but there's no -devel counterpart for the package, and it > > > > only installs the libraries but not the headers. > > > > > > > > Then if I list the contents of the g++ package, I do see: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > usr/include/c++/10.2.1/cstring > > > > ... > > > > > > > > And clang++'s include path is: > > > > > > > > #include <...> search starts here: > > > > > > > > /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/10.2.1/../../../../include/c++/10.2.1 > > > > > > > > /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/10.2.1/../../../../include/c++/10.2.1/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl > > > > > > > > /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/10.2.1/../../../../include/c++/10.2.1/backward > > > > /usr/include > > > > /usr/lib/clang/10.0.1/include > > > > > > > > So it does seem clang depends on the gcc c++ headers, I assume this is > > > > done in order to avoid having a duplicate set of c++ headers for clang > > > > and gcc? I really have no idea, but I do think clang package should > > > > depend on g++. > > > > > > As long as the g++ package is what provides the headers (i.e. if that's > > > their concept), I agree. > > > > That makes sense to me too. > > > > Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]> > > If nobody speaks up, I'll commit this patch and this patch: > > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=161433737432684 > > (both of them already acked by Ian and only affecting automation/) > within the next day or two.
I've reported the missing c++ headers with clang++ upstream, would you mind adding this link: https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/issues/12492 To the commit message here? Thanks, Roger.
