Hello Rene, Rene <pac...@protonmail.com> skribis:
> configure:6227: checking whether i586-pc-gnu-gcc implicitly enables > -fstack-protector > configure:6244: i586-pc-gnu-gcc -c -g -O2 conftest.c >&5 > configure:6244: $? = 0 > libc_undefs='' > configure:6263: error: unexpected symbols in test: This comes from this code in the configure.ac file of the glibc 2.23ish package that’s used in Guix for GNU/Hurd (this code is absent in the 2.26ish glibc used for GNU/Linux): --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether $CC implicitly enables -fstack-protector], libc_cv_predef_stack_protector, [ AC_TRY_COMPILE([extern void foobar (char *);], [char large_array[2048]; foobar (large_array);], [ libc_undefs=`$NM -u conftest.o | LC_ALL=C $AWK '$1 == "U" { print $2 | "sort -u"; next } { exit(1) }' \ 2>&AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD` || { AC_MSG_ERROR([confusing output from $NM -u]) } echo >&AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD "libc_undefs='$libc_undefs'" # On some architectures, there are architecture-specific undefined # symbols (resolved by the linker), so filter out unknown symbols. # This will fail to produce the correct result if the compiler # defaults to -fstack-protector but this produces an undefined symbol # other than __stack_chk_fail. However, compilers like that have not # been encountered in practice. libc_undefs=`echo "$libc_undefs" | egrep '^(foobar|__stack_chk_fail)$'` case "$libc_undefs" in foobar) libc_cv_predef_stack_protector=no ;; '__stack_chk_fail foobar') libc_cv_predef_stack_protector=yes ;; *) AC_MSG_ERROR([unexpected symbols in test: $libc_undefs]) ;; esac], [AC_MSG_ERROR([test compilation failed])]) ]) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- So it looks like the right-hand size of the ‘libc_undefs’ assignment expands to the empty string. Could you check the value of $NM in there? Could it be that it got it wrong? HTH, Ludo’.