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. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 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
