From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 266643861000 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:54:26 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 266643861000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 099IXel4006539 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:54:25 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 342vxugxt1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 14:54:25 -0400 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 099IZ5Qc010417 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:54:24 -0400 Received: from ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (7a.29.35a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.53.41.122]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 342vxugxsh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 09 Oct 2020 14:54:24 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 099Iq9q5027865; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:54:24 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.19]) by ppma04dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3429hw1afw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:54:24 +0000 Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.237]) by b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 099IsIrY34669246 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:54:18 GMT Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3F8C6055; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:54:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB88EC6059; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:54:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.160.57.122] (unknown [9.160.57.122]) by b03ledav006.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:54:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/28] elf: Enhance ld.so --help to print HWCAP subdirectories To: Florian Weimer , Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha References: <87h7r3ba39.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <87d01rb9wk.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> From: Matheus Castanho Message-ID: <11589777-b706-f077-82b4-7e13935fc572@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 15:54:19 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87d01rb9wk.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-10-09_09:2020-10-09, 2020-10-09 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010090132 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, GIT_PATCH_0, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:54:29 -0000 On 10/9/20 2:12 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha: > >> * Matheus Castanho: >> >>> I could reproduce this on both ppc64le and x84_64 with >>> --disable-tunables. Are we missing an `#include `? >>> >>> diff --git a/elf/dl-usage.c b/elf/dl-usage.c >>> index c07f43835b..796ad38b43 100644 >>> --- a/elf/dl-usage.c >>> +++ b/elf/dl-usage.c >>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ >>> #include >>> #include "version.h" >>> >>> +#include >>> #include >> >> Right, I think that's what's missing. It's an oversight on my part. I >> tried build-many-glibcs.py on the whole series, but it doesn't have a >> configuration without tunables. >> >> Would you please post your patch to the list? You can also push it at >> the same time if you want, I think missing #includes are considered >> trivial under the check-in policy. > > Eh, clearly you have posted this to the list already. It's been a long > day. 8-/ > > Please check this in at your convenience. Thanks. > > Florian > Ok. I'll ask someone to push it for me then. Thanks! -- Matheus Castanho