public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Newer hwcap failures
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 08:53:46 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ba402959-cdfa-dbb0-6174-7489f3deaf1c@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210129105111.GV3445@arm.com>



On 29/01/2021 07:51, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> The 01/29/2021 11:48, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Szabolcs Nagy:
>>
>>> The 01/29/2021 10:20, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>>> * Adhemerval Zanella:
>>>>
>>>>> The issue is test-container is copying the ld.so.cache from system into
>>>>> testroot and thus _dl_sysdep_read_whole_file does not fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> For 32-bit builds, there is not ld.so.cache then _dl_sysdep_read_whole_file
>>>>> fails and further ldconfig does not change the process map (since
>>>>> _dl_load_cache_lookup won't reload the cache after an initial failure).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's explain why I am seeing this only on system with default 64-bit
>>>>> userland.  I don't know exactly why I haven't see this before, neither
>>>>> if it were some testing regression added recently.
>>>>
>>>> I can't reproduce this (with an x86-64 host and a multilib toolchain).
>>>> Does it require an i386 chroot to reproduce?
>>>
>>> i see those tests fail with a config.make that has
>>>
>>> cross-compiling = maybe
>>>
>>> then /etc/ld.so.cache is missing from the install
>>> directory (since ldconfig is not run)
>>>
>>> i normally use a i686-linux-gnu toolchain on an
>>> x86_64 machine to test i686, not a chroot/container.
>>> in an i686 container with native gcc the tests pass.
>>
>> Hmm, how do you get that maybe?  Do you rebuild ./configure using
>> autoconf 2.70 or later?
>>
>> I see this in the configure file we ship:
>>
>> # There might be people who depend on the old broken behavior: `$host'
>> # used to hold the argument of --host etc.
>> # FIXME: To remove some day.
>> build=$build_alias
>> host=$host_alias
>> target=$target_alias
>>
>> # FIXME: To remove some day.
>> if test "x$host_alias" != x; then
>>   if test "x$build_alias" = x; then
>>     cross_compiling=maybe
>>   elif test "x$build_alias" != "x$host_alias"; then
>>     cross_compiling=yes
>>   fi
>> fi
>>
>> I configure glibc with --build=i686-linux-gnu, and that gives me
>> “cross-compiling = no” in config.make.
> 
> hm ok i use --host=i686-linux-gnu but not build
> may be i should add --build too.
> 
> (but in case of real cross compiling when i
> run the tests with cross-wrapper+ssh then i
> cannot change the --build and the tests will
> fail)
> 

In my environment I use '--build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=i686-linux-gnu' and
CFLAGS="x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu-gcc -m32" with a multiarch gcc built with
build-many-glibcs.py:

$ x86_64-glibc-linux-gnu-gcc -v
[...]
Configure with: [...]  --with-multilib-list=m64,m32,mx32 [...]

This results in:

$ grep cross-compiling config.make 
cross-compiling = yes

In most cases it does not interfere because cache won't be used. But I
still think we should fix to the test that actually check ldconfig
and ld.so.cache.

My idea to handle it is to add a new 'ldconfig' rule to *.script to
trigger a new ld.so.cache creation for container tests.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-29 11:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-28 18:47 Adhemerval Zanella
2021-01-28 18:52 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2021-01-28 19:53 ` Florian Weimer
2021-01-28 20:01   ` Adhemerval Zanella
2021-01-28 20:21     ` Adhemerval Zanella
2021-01-28 20:30       ` Adhemerval Zanella
2021-01-28 21:23         ` Adhemerval Zanella
2021-01-28 22:03           ` DJ Delorie
2021-01-29  5:56             ` Florian Weimer
2021-01-29  6:07               ` DJ Delorie
2021-01-29  6:09               ` DJ Delorie
2021-01-29  9:20           ` Florian Weimer
2021-01-29 10:43             ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-01-29 10:48               ` Florian Weimer
2021-01-29 10:51                 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2021-01-29 11:53                   ` Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
2021-01-29 12:46                     ` H.J. Lu
2021-01-29 12:31                   ` Florian Weimer
2021-01-29 13:06                     ` Adhemerval Zanella

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ba402959-cdfa-dbb0-6174-7489f3deaf1c@linaro.org \
    --to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).