On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:29 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Just upgraded a development machine to: > > binutils-2.34.0-10.fc33.x86_64 > gcc-10.1.1-2.fc33.x86_64 > glibc-2.31.9000-21.fc33.x86_64 > > and a very simple C compile (non-LTO) is now segfaulting: > > make[3]: Entering directory '/home/rjones/d/nbdkit/common/protocol' > /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. > -I../.. -Wall -Wshadow -Wvla -Werror -O0 -g -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -MT > libprotocol_la-protostrings.lo -MD -MP -MF > .deps/libprotocol_la-protostrings.Tpo -c -o libprotocol_la-protostrings.lo > `test -f 'protostrings.c' || echo './'`protostrings.c > libtool: compile: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -Wall -Wshadow -Wvla > -Werror -O0 -g -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -MT libprotocol_la-protostrings.lo -MD > -MP -MF .deps/libprotocol_la-protostrings.Tpo -c protostrings.c -fPIC -DPIC > -o .libs/libprotocol_la-protostrings.o > libtool: compile: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -Wall -Wshadow -Wvla > -Werror -O0 -g -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -MT libprotocol_la-protostrings.lo -MD > -MP -MF .deps/libprotocol_la-protostrings.Tpo -c protostrings.c -o > libprotocol_la-protostrings.o >/dev/null 2>&1 > mv -f .deps/libprotocol_la-protostrings.Tpo > .deps/libprotocol_la-protostrings.Plo > /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -Wall -Wshadow -Wvla > -Werror -O0 -g -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -O0 -g -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -o > libprotocol.la libprotocol_la-protostrings.lo > libtool: link: ar cru .libs/libprotocol.a .libs/libprotocol_la-protostrings.o > ../../libtool: line 1734: 2572327 Segmentation fault (core dumped) ar > cru .libs/libprotocol.a .libs/libprotocol_la-protostrings.o > > Core was generated by `ar cru .libs/libprotocol.a > .libs/libprotocol_la-protostrings.o'. > Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > #0 0x0000000000000000 in ?? () > binutils-2.34.0-10.fc33.x86_64 > (gdb) bt > Missing separate debuginfos, use: dnf debuginfo-install#0 0x0000000000000000 > in ?? () > #1 0x00007f15bd3e03d0 in make_relative_prefix_1.part () > from /lib64/libbfd-2.34.0.20200522.so > #2 0x00007f15bd3d22db in bfd_plugin_object_p.lto_priv () > from /lib64/libbfd-2.34.0.20200522.so > #3 0x00007f15bd3401ce in bfd_check_format_matches () > from /lib64/libbfd-2.34.0.20200522.so > #4 0x00007f15bd340e7a in _bfd_write_archive_contents () > from /lib64/libbfd-2.34.0.20200522.so > #5 0x00007f15bd348b2a in bfd_close () from /lib64/libbfd-2.34.0.20200522.so > #6 0x0000559ee83994b6 in write_archive () > #7 0x0000559ee8396ac3 in main () > > I can't find any BZ for this. Any ideas what it could be? Hmm, what's interesting here is that it's binutils-2.34, so it's not the update that Nick was doing to do today. I've seen a couple folks trip over this today and just saw it in a couple of my builds.
I'll take a look. I'm not much of a binutils hacker these days, but it's just code. jeff > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
