http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2013-01-30 10:34:29 UTC --- On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128 > > --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-30 > 08:13:29 UTC --- > The issue unfortunately isn't old vs. new kernels, just using <linux/*> and > <asm/*> headers, which as can be seen in this case sometimes aren't of a good > quality, kernel treats them as kernel headers and whether they are usable in > userland is far lower priority to them. So, if <linux/*> or <asm/*> includes > can be avoided, it is always better to avoid them, and in this case it can be > very easily avoided. And as for disabling whole sanitizer, how would you > expect it to work? Just let users see a failed bootstrap and then find out > they need to add --disable-target-libsanitizer to configure next time? > > OT, Richard, does --disable-target-libsanitizer work for you? Yes, it does.
