On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:31:54 GMT, Yasumasa Suenaga <[email protected]> wrote:

> I saw following error when I tried to build Linux x86_64 devkit on glibc 2.43 
> system (Fedora 44):
> 
> 
> /usr/src/jdk/build/devkit/src/binutils-2.43/gprofng/libcollector/iolib.c: In 
> function 'is_not_the_log_
> file':
> /usr/src/jdk/build/devkit/src/binutils-2.43/gprofng/libcollector/iolib.c:898:18:
>  error: expected ident
> ifier before '_Generic'
>   898 | if (CALL_UTIL (strstr)(fname, SP_LOG_FILE) == NULL)
>       | ^~~~~~
> /usr/src/jdk/build/devkit/src/binutils-2.43/gprofng/libcollector/iolib.c:898:7:
>  note: in expansion of
> macro 'CALL_UTIL'
>   898 | if (CALL_UTIL (strstr)(fname, SP_LOG_FILE) == NULL)
>       | ^~~~~~~~~
>   GEN doc/strings.1
> mv -f .deps/libgp_collector_la-gethrtime.Tpo 
> .deps/libgp_collector_la-gethrtime.Plo
> make[7]: *** [Makefile:645: libgp_collector_la-iolib.lo] Error 1
> 
> 
> According to release notes of glibc 2.43, `_Generic` macro has been 
> introduced as a part of C23, and it might break some packages [1]. It is 
> binutils in devkit.
> 
> It is not a bug in OpenJDK and devkit, but it is better if we can avoid the 
> problem with some options. The problem is in gprofng, so we can avoid the 
> problem if we can add `--disable-gprofng` in configure options of binutils. 
> gprofng is a profiler, so it is not required for devkit.
> 
> 
> Note that we cannot build Linux x86_64 devkit on Fedora 44 (glibc 2.43 + gcc 
> 16.1) with this change only. We also need to add `-std=gnu17`. I exclude it 
> from this change (so far) because we can add it via `CFLAGS` environment 
> variable and I'm not sure how it affects in older C compilers.
> 
> [1] 
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.43#C23_Const-Preserving_Standard_Library_Macros_May_Break_Some_Packages
> 
> ---------
> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK 
> Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).

Marked as reviewed by erikj (Reviewer).

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31511#pullrequestreview-4494933625

Reply via email to