* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
@ 2013-05-20 5:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-20 17:55 ` [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] " PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (26 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-20 5:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
If you don't have __NR_exit_group, your kernel very likely doesn't have the
rest of NPTL support either (so e.g. __NR_futex), so I'm surprised this is the
only error.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
2013-05-20 5:45 ` [Bug sanitizer/57316] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-20 17:55 ` PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
2013-05-21 9:35 ` [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (25 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: PHHargrove at lbl dot gov @ 2013-05-20 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #3 from Paul H. Hargrove <PHHargrove at lbl dot gov> ---
(In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #1)
> Sorry for the breakages, but we are unable to monitor build failures on old
> kernels unless someone sets up a regular testing (build bot) with such kernels
> for upstream code.
This error is from a private "build bot" I've now got set up to perform daily
builds of the gupc branch in SVN (see http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/gupc.html).
As changes are merged from the trunk to that branch I will notice any build
failures and I report them to the GCC Bugzilla if/when I can reproduce them in
the trunk or recent snapshot (eg bug 55989) or in a release (as with this bug).
Otherwise they are reported to the GUPC team.
I am configuring with --disable-libsanitizer right now, but will remove that
when/if this bug is resolved such that I can build again.
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> If you don't have __NR_exit_group, your kernel very likely doesn't have the
> rest of NPTL support either (so e.g. __NR_futex), so I'm surprised this is
> the only error.
This is an old Red Hat "2.4.21-60.ELsmp" kernel that contains various bits that
Red Hat backported. So, the unistd.h has __NR_fuxtex but not __NR_exit_group.
I can't say for sure that futex works, however, as there is no NPTL version of
libpthread on the system.
For my own purposes, there is no need to make libsanitizer work on this
platform. So, if that is not possible I'd like to see configure probe for each
of the syscall numbers (and prctl constants as in bug 55989) and then
automatically disable building the sanitizer code if any are missing. I don't
like current the build-is-broken-by-default situation.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
2013-05-20 5:45 ` [Bug sanitizer/57316] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-20 17:55 ` [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] " PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
@ 2013-05-21 9:35 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-31 10:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (24 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-21 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.1
Summary|[4.8 regression] build |[4.8/4.9 regression] build
|failure in libsanitizer |failure in libsanitizer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-21 9:35 ` [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-31 10:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-08-28 21:29 ` skunk at iskunk dot org
` (23 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-31 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.8.1 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-31 10:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-08-28 21:29 ` skunk at iskunk dot org
2013-10-16 9:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (22 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: skunk at iskunk dot org @ 2013-08-28 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Daniel Richard G. <skunk at iskunk dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |skunk at iskunk dot org
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Richard G. <skunk at iskunk dot org> ---
I get this same error building on an old Debian woody system:
/home/src/gcc-4.8.1/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc: In
function 'void __sanitizer::internal__exit(int)':
/home/src/gcc-4.8.1/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:142:11:
error: '__NR_exit_group' was not declared in this scope
syscall(__NR_exit_group, exitcode);
^
/home/src/gcc-4.8.1/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc: In member
function 'void __sanitizer::BlockingMutex::Lock()':
/home/src/gcc-4.8.1/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:529:13:
error: '__NR_futex' was not declared in this scope
syscall(__NR_futex, m, FUTEX_WAIT, MtxSleeping, 0, 0, 0);
^
/home/src/gcc-4.8.1/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc: In member
function 'void __sanitizer::BlockingMutex::Unlock()':
/home/src/gcc-4.8.1/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:537:13:
error: '__NR_futex' was not declared in this scope
syscall(__NR_futex, m, FUTEX_WAKE, 1, 0, 0, 0);
^
gmake[4]: *** [sanitizer_linux.lo] Error 1
Would a fallback implementation of BlockingMutex::{Lock,Unlock}() that uses
pthread_mutex_*() be sensible here?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-08-28 21:29 ` skunk at iskunk dot org
@ 2013-10-16 9:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-30 12:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (21 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-16 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.8.2 |4.8.3
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.8.2 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-16 9:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-10-30 12:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-30 19:09 ` skunk at iskunk dot org
` (20 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-10-30 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2013-10-30
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
What's the status of this bug?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-30 12:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-10-30 19:09 ` skunk at iskunk dot org
2013-11-22 10:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (19 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: skunk at iskunk dot org @ 2013-10-30 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Richard G. <skunk at iskunk dot org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> What's the status of this bug?
Same as I reported in comment #5---I just confirmed with a build of 4.8.2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-10-30 19:09 ` skunk at iskunk dot org
@ 2013-11-22 10:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-22 11:01 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
` (18 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-11-22 10:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|WAITING |NEW
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-22 10:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-01-22 11:01 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-01-22 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: y.gribov at samsung dot com @ 2014-01-22 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |y.gribov at samsung dot com
--- Comment #11 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
Created attachment 31916
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31916&action=edit
More robust check
Does this look reasonable? Should also work for cross-builds.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-22 11:01 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
@ 2014-01-22 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-22 11:55 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
` (16 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-01-22 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #11)
> Created attachment 31916 [details]
> More robust check
>
> Does this look reasonable? Should also work for cross-builds.
1) these syscalls are only needed on Linux, not on Darwin I think, so you
change would disable libsanitizer on Darwin (not that I care about it)
2) I think it is undesirable to put this check into toplevel configure, I'd say
the determination when to make the whole libsanitizer UNSUPPORTED should be
limited to target triplet checking. I think my preference would be to test
this in libsanitizer/configure* and just make even the asan etc. conditional on
an automake conditional.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-22 11:06 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-01-22 11:55 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-01-22 12:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: y.gribov at samsung dot com @ 2014-01-22 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #31916|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #13 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
Created attachment 31917
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31917&action=edit
Second try
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> 1) these syscalls are only needed on Linux, not on Darwin I think, so you
> change would disable libsanitizer on Darwin (not that I care about it)
Fixed.
> 2) I think it is undesirable to put this check into toplevel configure
> I'd say
> the determination when to make the whole libsanitizer UNSUPPORTED should be
> limited to target triplet checking.
I see.
> I think my preference would be to test
> this in libsanitizer/configure* and just make even the asan etc. conditional
> on an automake conditional.
Makes sense. Something like this then?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-22 11:55 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
@ 2014-01-22 12:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-22 14:13 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-01-22 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I wouldn't call the conditional SYSCALL_SUPPORTED, but SANITIZER_SUPPORTED or
so.
In the future, the configure could have various other reasons why it should
give up on building any sanitizer libraries altogether. Also, supposedly
__NR_gettid could be added to the test too.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-22 12:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-01-22 14:13 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-01-22 14:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: y.gribov at samsung dot com @ 2014-01-22 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #31917|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #15 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
Created attachment 31921
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31921&action=edit
Third try
Makes sense, patch updated.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-22 14:13 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
@ 2014-01-22 14:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-22 14:32 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-01-22 14:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Sorry for not catching it earlier, I'm worried about -Wunused complaining about
the vars. Can you instead use something like
int x = syscall (__NR_gettid);
syscall (__NR_futex, &x, 1, 1);
syscall (__NR_exit_group, 0);
? Please post to gcc-patches with the change (if it works). Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-22 14:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-01-22 14:32 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-01-23 14:34 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: y.gribov at samsung dot com @ 2014-01-22 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #17 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
Will do.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8/4.9 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-22 14:32 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
@ 2014-01-23 14:34 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-01-24 7:45 ` [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 " PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (10 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: y.gribov at samsung dot com @ 2014-01-23 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #19 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
Paul, could you check if libsanitizer is now auto-disabled on your system and
close the bug in that case?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-23 14:34 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
@ 2014-01-24 7:45 ` PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
2014-01-24 23:37 ` PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (9 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: PHHargrove at lbl dot gov @ 2014-01-24 7:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #20 from Paul H. Hargrove <PHHargrove at lbl dot gov> ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #19)
> Paul, could you check if libsanitizer is now auto-disabled on your system
> and close the bug in that case?
Probably can't get to this until next week.
However, I've added this to my TODO list.
-Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-24 7:45 ` [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 " PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
@ 2014-01-24 23:37 ` PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
2014-01-27 7:47 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: PHHargrove at lbl dot gov @ 2014-01-24 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #21 from Paul H. Hargrove <PHHargrove at lbl dot gov> ---
A build from svn trunk (r207062) completed w/o problems.
I see:
Configuring in i686-pc-linux-gnu/libsanitizer
followed later by
checking for necessary platform features... no
So the added configure check appears to have functioned as intended.
Do I need to test other branches too?
-Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-24 23:37 ` PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
@ 2014-01-27 7:47 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-02-05 3:47 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: y.gribov at samsung dot com @ 2014-01-27 7:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #22 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
(In reply to Paul H. Hargrove from comment #21)
> Do I need to test other branches too?
No, I don't think so.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-27 7:47 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
@ 2014-02-05 3:47 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-05-22 9:00 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: y.gribov at samsung dot com @ 2014-02-05 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #23 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
Can we close this one?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2014-02-05 3:47 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
@ 2014-05-22 9:00 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-21 16:24 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-05-22 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.8.3 |4.8.4
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.8.3 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2014-05-22 9:00 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-10-21 16:24 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-10-21 22:17 ` PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (4 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: y.gribov at samsung dot com @ 2014-10-21 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #25 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
Can we close this?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2014-10-21 16:24 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
@ 2014-10-21 22:17 ` PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
2014-10-22 5:29 ` skunk at iskunk dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: PHHargrove at lbl dot gov @ 2014-10-21 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #26 from Paul H. Hargrove <PHHargrove at lbl dot gov> ---
(In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #25)
> Can we close this?
Just tried to build the released 4.8.3 and still see the original problem (see
error messages below). Same is true at the tip of the gcc-4_8-branch in svn
(at r216525).
However, 4.9.1 is fine.
So, please don't close if 4.8.x is still open to bug fixes.
If 4.8. is closed, then this bug can be closed too.
-Paul
libtool: compile: /home/pcp1/phargrov/tmp/gcc-4.8.3/BLD/./gcc/xgcc
-shared-libgcc -B/home/pcp1/phargrov/tmp/gcc-4.8.3/BLD/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/home/pcp1/phargrov/tmp/gcc-4.8.3/BLD/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/home/pcp1/phargrov/tmp/gcc-4.8.3/BLD/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/
-isystem /usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_DEBUG
-D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -I.
-I../../../../libsanitizer/sanitizer_common -I ../../../../libsanitizer/include
-Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -pedantic -Wno-long-long -fPIC
-fno-builtin -fno-exceptions -fomit-frame-pointer -funwind-tables
-fvisibility=hidden -Wno-variadic-macros -I../../libstdc++-v3/include
-I../../libstdc++-v3/include/i686-pc-linux-gnu
-I../../../../libsanitizer/../libstdc++-v3/libsupc++ -g -O0 -D_GNU_SOURCE -MT
sanitizer_linux.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/sanitizer_linux.Tpo -c
../../../../libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc -fPIC -DPIC -o
.libs/sanitizer_linux.o
../../../../libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc: In function 'void
__sanitizer::internal__exit(int)':
../../../../libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:142:11: error:
'__NR_exit_group' was not declared in this scope
syscall(__NR_exit_group, exitcode);
^
make[4]: *** [sanitizer_linux.lo] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory
`/home/pcp1/phargrov/tmp/gcc-4.8.3/BLD/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common'
make[3]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/home/pcp1/phargrov/tmp/gcc-4.8.3/BLD/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libsanitizer'
make[2]: *** [all-stage1-target-libsanitizer] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/pcp1/phargrov/tmp/gcc-4.8.3/BLD'
make[1]: *** [stage1-bubble] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/pcp1/phargrov/tmp/gcc-4.8.3/BLD'
make: *** [all] Error 2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2014-10-21 22:17 ` PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
@ 2014-10-22 5:29 ` skunk at iskunk dot org
2014-10-22 7:59 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: skunk at iskunk dot org @ 2014-10-22 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #27 from Daniel Richard G. <skunk at iskunk dot org> ---
Likewise confirmed on the same Woody system from comment #5: 4.9.1 bootstraps
fine, 4.8.3 still has the bug.
(Oddly enough, the first configure run in the 4.9.1 bootstrap has the message
"checking for libsanitizer support... yes")
Given the target milestone, I presume there's going to be a 4.8.4?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (24 preceding siblings ...)
2014-10-22 5:29 ` skunk at iskunk dot org
@ 2014-10-22 7:59 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-12-19 13:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-23 8:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: y.gribov at samsung dot com @ 2014-10-22 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
--- Comment #28 from Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung dot com> ---
(In reply to Paul H. Hargrove from comment #26)
> (In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #25)
> > Can we close this?
>
> Just tried to build the released 4.8.3 and still see the original problem
> (see error messages below). Same is true at the tip of the gcc-4_8-branch
> in svn (at r216525).
>
> However, 4.9.1 is fine.
Right, I fixed this in 4.9 and never bothered to backport to 4.8.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (25 preceding siblings ...)
2014-10-22 7:59 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
@ 2014-12-19 13:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-23 8:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-12-19 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.8.4 |4.8.5
--- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 4.8.4 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread* [Bug sanitizer/57316] [4.8 regression] build failure in libsanitizer
2013-05-17 16:34 [Bug sanitizer/57316] New: [4.8 regresion] build failure in libsanitizer PHHargrove at lbl dot gov
` (26 preceding siblings ...)
2014-12-19 13:39 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-06-23 8:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
27 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-23 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57316
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|4.8.5 |4.9.0
Known to fail| |4.8.5
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 4.9.0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread