On 04/28/2012 09:27 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
With this ugly (work-in-progress) hack (needed only in gbuild-part) make
check command pass now on Ubuntu 11.10 (with default --as-needed linker
option)
I'm not sure, if this is the best place to do it.
Note:
I did it unconditionally: the production
On 26.04.2012 15:04, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
[I accidentally sent this response to David only...]
Original Message
Subject: Re: make check problem in libtest_smoketest building master
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:10:19 +0200
From: Stephan Bergmann
To: David Ostrovsky
On 04/25
[I accidentally sent this response to David only...]
Original Message
Subject: Re: make check problem in libtest_smoketest building master
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:10:19 +0200
From: Stephan Bergmann
To: David Ostrovsky
On 04/25/2012 11:00 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> Now
On Wednesday 25 of April 2012, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 13.04.2012 11:35, Noel Grandin wrote:
> > On 2012-04-12 14:40, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> >> Insist on people compiling with an unbroken toolchain instead?
> >
> > It looks like Fedora is also going to do this:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/w
On 13.04.2012 11:35, Noel Grandin wrote:
On 2012-04-12 14:40, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Insist on people compiling with an unbroken toolchain instead?
It looks like Fedora is also going to do this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
I'm willing to write a confi
On 23/04/12 09:49, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 04/22/2012 10:51 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
>> your patch was still not pushed.
>>
>> So we have two options here:
>> 1. push your patch (I attached it with description ;-)
>> 2. use make interactive variable LDFLAGS, a lá make
>> LDFLAGS='-Wl,--no-as
On 04/22/2012 10:51 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
your patch was still not pushed.
So we have two options here:
1. push your patch (I attached it with description ;-)
2. use make interactive variable LDFLAGS, a lá make
LDFLAGS='-Wl,--no-as-needed' check
Any ideas on this?
I still do not see why
Hi Matúš,
your patch was still not pushed.
So we have two options here:
1. push your patch (I attached it with description ;-)
2. use make interactive variable LDFLAGS, a lá make
LDFLAGS='-Wl,--no-as-needed' check
Any ideas on this?
Ciao
David
On 13.04.2012 12:40, Matúš Kukan wrote:
On 11
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 01:44:23PM +0200, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm running into the same issue:
>
>
> [ build RGM ]
> CustomTarget/jurt/test/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/registry.rdb
> terminate called after throwing an instance of
> 'CppUnit::DynamicLibraryManagerException'
>
On 04/13/2012 01:42 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:48:24PM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
I would still prefer to simply insist on Ubuntu fixing their tool
chain.
Well, Ubuntu (and I think Debian too) are defaulting to as-needed for:
- deps (which claims OpenSUSE doing
Hi,
I'm running into the same issue:
[ build RGM ]
CustomTarget/jurt/test/com/sun/star/lib/uno/protocols/urp/registry.rdb
terminate called after throwing an instance of
'CppUnit::DynamicLibraryManagerException'
what(): Symbol [cppunitTestPlugIn] not found in dynamic
libary:/home/david/pro
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:48:24PM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> I would still prefer to simply insist on Ubuntu fixing their tool
> chain.
Well, Ubuntu (and I think Debian too) are defaulting to as-needed for:
- deps (which claims OpenSUSE doing the same)
http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChai
On 2012-04-13 12:48, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Noel, do you happen to be affected because you are on a pre-final
natty release (whatever that is)?
I'm running 11.10 (Oneiric) which is the latest production release.
Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html
__
On 04/13/2012 11:35 AM, Noel Grandin wrote:
On 2012-04-12 14:40, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Insist on people compiling with an unbroken toolchain instead?
It looks like Fedora is also going to do this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
No, as already detailed by
On 11 April 2012 14:24, Noel Grandin wrote:
> Building on Ubuntu 64-bit, "make check" is failing because of a missing
> symbol in libtest_smoketest.so.
> Doing a "make smoketest.clean" doesn't seem to help.
> The library does genuinely seem to be missing the symbol (readelf log
> attached).
>
> An
On 13/04/12 11:35, Noel Grandin wrote:
>
>
> On 2012-04-12 14:40, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> Insist on people compiling with an unbroken toolchain instead?
>>
>>
> It looks like Fedora is also going to do this:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
this is a differe
On 2012-04-12 14:40, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Insist on people compiling with an unbroken toolchain instead?
It looks like Fedora is also going to do this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
I'm willing to write a configure test to add the --no-as-needed flag i
On 04/12/2012 12:40 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
wonder what we should do about ld that defaults to --as-needed...
Insist on people compiling with an unbroken toolchain instead?
For the smoketest problem at hand, the best thing would probably be to
get rid of the broken test_smoketest vs. smokete
Zitat von Michael Stahl :
On 12/04/12 12:32, Noel Grandin wrote:
On 2012-04-12 11:51, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
What is the output of
readelf -d
workdir/unxlngx6.pro/LinkTarget/CppunitTest/libtest_smoketest.so
for you?
Output attached.
0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared lib
On 2012-04-12 12:40, Michael Stahl wrote:
it should work if you do this: cd smoketest && make -r clean && make
-r LDFLAGS=-Wl,--no-as-needed subsequentcheck
Indeed that works (not entirely, but at least it gets past the symbol
loading issue).
Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.h
On 2012-04-12 11:56, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Sounds plausible. Just asked Noel for readelf -d output for
verification. I would consider an ld that assumes --as-needed per
default as broken.
For whatever reason, Ubuntu appears to do that now:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NattyNarwhal/Toolchai
On 12/04/12 12:32, Noel Grandin wrote:
>
>
> On 2012-04-12 11:51, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> What is the output of
>>
>> readelf -d
>> workdir/unxlngx6.pro/LinkTarget/CppunitTest/libtest_smoketest.so
>>
>> for you?
>>
> Output attached.
> 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library:
On 2012-04-12 11:51, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
What is the output of
readelf -d
workdir/unxlngx6.pro/LinkTarget/CppunitTest/libtest_smoketest.so
for you?
Output attached.
Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html
noel@ubuntu:~/libo$ readelf -d
workdir/unxlngx6.pro/LinkTarget/
On 04/12/2012 10:48 AM, Noel Grandin wrote:
Output attached.
[...]
10709: symbol=dlsym; lookup in file=/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdl.so.2
[0]
10709: symbol=cppunitTestPlugIn; lookup in
file=/home/noel/libo/workdir/unxlngx6.pro/LinkTarget/CppunitTest/libtest_smoketest.so
[0]
On 04/12/2012 11:05 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
Stephan Bergmann píše v St 11. 04. 2012 v 16:29 +0200:
Looks like the dynamic loader on your system does not support dlsym to
report a symbol not exported by the lib itself, but only indirectly by a
lib the first lib links against.
I wonder if it migh
Stephan Bergmann píše v St 11. 04. 2012 v 16:29 +0200:
> On 04/11/2012 02:24 PM, Noel Grandin wrote:
> > Building on Ubuntu 64-bit, "make check" is failing because of a missing
> > symbol in libtest_smoketest.so.
> > Doing a "make smoketest.clean" doesn't seem to help.
> > The library does genuinel
On 04/12/2012 10:30 AM, Noel Grandin wrote:
On 2012-04-12 10:22, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Please find out whether the assumption is correct (see Lubos' mail on
LD_DEBUG).
I tried
LD_DEBUG=symbols make check
but it produced so much output it seems to have broken the build - it
eventually fr
On 2012-04-12 10:22, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Please find out whether the assumption is correct (see Lubos' mail on
LD_DEBUG).
I tried
LD_DEBUG=symbols make check
but it produced so much output it seems to have broken the build - it
eventually froze up during a link step.
How do I run j
On 04/12/2012 09:49 AM, Noel Grandin wrote:
On 2012-04-11 16:29, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Looks like the dynamic loader on your system does not support dlsym to
report a symbol not exported by the lib itself, but only indirectly by
a lib the first lib links against.
Darn, I would have thought
On 2012-04-11 16:29, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Looks like the dynamic loader on your system does not support dlsym to
report a symbol not exported by the lib itself, but only indirectly by
a lib the first lib links against.
Darn, I would have thought that by now pretty much all Linux's had th
On Wednesday 11 of April 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 02:24 PM, Noel Grandin wrote:
> > Building on Ubuntu 64-bit, "make check" is failing because of a missing
> > symbol in libtest_smoketest.so.
> > Doing a "make smoketest.clean" doesn't seem to help.
> > The library does genuinel
On 04/11/2012 02:24 PM, Noel Grandin wrote:
Building on Ubuntu 64-bit, "make check" is failing because of a missing
symbol in libtest_smoketest.so.
Doing a "make smoketest.clean" doesn't seem to help.
The library does genuinely seem to be missing the symbol (readelf log
attached).
In the case o
32 matches
Mail list logo
