Re: Glibc-2.14 issues

2011-06-06 Thread DJ Lucas
On 06/06/2011 03:07 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> I'd prefer for us not to use HJL's binutils
>
Then don't. That patch doesn't look all that invasive..no need to add 
tests for local build fix, just the 3 corrected files (bottom of the list).

-- DJ Lucas



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Glibc-2.14 issues

2011-06-06 Thread Andrew Benton
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:07:58 -0600
Matthew Burgess  wrote:

> Do you have a pointer to the binutils-2.21.51

ftp://sourceware.org/pub/binutils/snapshots/binutils-2.21.51.tar.bz2

Andy
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Glibc-2.14 issues

2011-06-06 Thread Matthew Burgess
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:59:19 +0100, Andrew Benton  wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:55:21 -0600
> Matthew Burgess  wrote:
>
>> I guess the first question is, has anyone else seen this issue?
> 
> No, I don't get that. It could be because I've been using eglibc for a
> while. It could also be an architecture thing; I'm using x86_64, are
> you using i686?

I suspect it's because of the arch differences, I'm on i686 here.
 
> However, when I try to compile it the build fails like so:



> /usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.21 internal error, aborting at
> ../../binutils-2.21/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c line 2764 in
> elf64_x86_64_relocate_section
> 
> /usr/bin/ld: Please report this bug.
>
> Apparently this is a bug in binutils' ld that is fixed in
> binutils-2.21.51.

I don't see this error, again presumably because of being on i686.

> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12366
> 
> I have tested binutils-2.21.51 and glibc-2.14 compiles fine with it.
> Current firefox from mercurial also compiles with binutils-2.21.51.
> With binutils-2.21 current firefox fails to build in a similar way to
> glibc-2.14. I have built my current system with binutils-2.21.51 it
> seems to work fine and solves those 2 compile failures for me.

So, it looks like if I just commit my change to upgrade Glibc this is
going to break x86_64 users.  I'd prefer for us not to use HJL's binutils
for the reasons already outlined at [0] but we may have to consider it
in this case.

Thanks,

Matt.

[0] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html#hjl-binutilsDo you have a 
pointer to the binutils-2.21.51

Thanks,

Matt.

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page


Re: Glibc-2.14 issues

2011-06-06 Thread Andrew Benton
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 14:55:21 -0600
Matthew Burgess  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The following is taken from my build logs when using Glibc-2.13:
> 
> checking cpuid.h usability... no
> checking cpuid.h presence... yes
> configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: present but cannot be compiled
> configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: check for missing prerequisite headers?
> configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: see the Autoconf documentation
> configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: section "Present But Cannot Be Compiled"
> configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result
> configure: WARNING: cpuid.h: in the future, the compiler will take precedence
> checking for cpuid.h... yes
> 
> Using Glibc-2.14, that final line reads 'no', and appears to stem from the
> lack of 'stdio.h'.  stdio.h is installed by Glibc, so it would appear as if
> we're getting into a circular dependency here somehow, but I'm yet to figure
> out how/why Glibc-2.14 is behaving so differently to Glibc-2.13.
> 
> I guess the first question is, has anyone else seen this issue?

No, I don't get that. It could be because I've been using eglibc for a
while. It could also be an architecture thing; I'm using x86_64, are
you using i686? When I configure glibc-2.14 I get:

checking cpuid.h usability... yes
checking cpuid.h presence... yes
checking for cpuid.h... yes

However, when I try to compile it the build fails like so:

make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.14/elf'
gcc   -shared -static-libgcc -Wl,-O1  -Wl,-z,defs 
-Wl,-dynamic-linker=/tools/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2  
-B/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/csu/  
-Wl,--version-script=/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/libc.map 
-Wl,-soname=libc.so.6 -Wl,-z,combreloc -Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--hash-style=both 
-nostdlib -nostartfiles -e __libc_main -L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build 
-L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/math -L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/elf 
-L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/dlfcn -L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/nss 
-L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/nis -L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/rt 
-L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/resolv -L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/crypt 
-L/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/nptl 
-Wl,-rpath-link=/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/math:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/elf:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/dlfcn:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/nss:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/nis:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/rt:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/resolv:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/crypt:/mnt/lfs
 /sources/glibc-build/nptl -o /mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/linkobj/libc.so -T 
/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/shlib.lds 
/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/csu/abi-note.o 
/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/elf/soinit.os -Wl,--whole-archive 
/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/linkobj/libc_pic.a -Wl,--no-whole-archive 
/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/elf/sofini.os 
/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/elf/interp.os 
/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/elf/ld.so -lgcc
/usr/bin/ld: BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.21 internal error, aborting at 
../../binutils-2.21/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c line 2764 in 
elf64_x86_64_relocate_section

/usr/bin/ld: Please report this bug.

collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[1]: *** [/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build/linkobj/libc.so] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-2.14'
make: *** [all] Error 2
andy:/mnt/lfs/sources/glibc-build$ 

Apparently this is a bug in binutils' ld that is fixed in
binutils-2.21.51. 

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12366

I have tested binutils-2.21.51 and glibc-2.14 compiles fine with it.
Current firefox from mercurial also compiles with binutils-2.21.51.
With binutils-2.21 current firefox fails to build in a similar way to
glibc-2.14. I have built my current system with binutils-2.21.51 it
seems to work fine and solves those 2 compile failures for me.

Andy
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page