Re: Bug#666391: valgrind: 64-bit valgrind can not run 32-bit binary due to missing/incorrect debug symbols
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0200, Sebastian Rasmussen wrote: I have problems running 32-bit binaries in my 64-bit valgrind, however this likely a bug related to eglibc or possibly in how valgrind depends on eglibc's packages. I expect that both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries can be run inside valgrind (or at least that there are packages recommended by valgrind that I install to do so). The problem is there is not debug symbols packaged as a biarch package in Debian, meaning that valgrind is mostly useless used with libc6-i386. In other words there is no libc6-i386-dbg package as you note later: For 64-bit binaries (shown above) /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so (installed by libc6) does have a .gnu_debuglink section pointing to the debug-version of located in /usr/lib/debug (more specifically /usr/lib/debug/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so) which is installed by libc6-dbg. To behave properly, you have two roads, either ask the libc maintainer to provide a libc6-i386-dbg package, which between us, wouldn't really be the proper way, or more simply, use multiarch. For that: # dpkg --add-architecture i386 # apt-get update # apt-get install libc6-i686:i386 libc6-dbg:i386 For *some* reason I don't really understand, the first time I ran your testing-32 I had to specify the full path to the ld.so in this fashion: $ valgrind /lib/i386-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so ./testing-32 But it's now fine and runs properly when I just do: $ valgrind ./testing-32 I've no real clue on *why* it didn't work the first time, probably some kind of ld.so.cache or something. I've put the glibc maintainer in the loop because it's not clear to me why valgrind ./testing-32 failed in the first instance, maybe he'll have a clue, I suspect that ldconfig didn't do the right thing because of the fact that I have three libc's: libc6:amd64, libc6-i686:i386 and libc6-i386:amd64… and it probably picked the wrong ones. Cheers, -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120403084714.ga5...@madism.org
Re: Bug#666391: valgrind: 64-bit valgrind can not run 32-bit binary due to missing/incorrect debug symbols
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:47:14AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0200, Sebastian Rasmussen wrote: I have problems running 32-bit binaries in my 64-bit valgrind, however this likely a bug related to eglibc or possibly in how valgrind depends on eglibc's packages. I expect that both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries can be run inside valgrind (or at least that there are packages recommended by valgrind that I install to do so). The problem is there is not debug symbols packaged as a biarch package in Debian, meaning that valgrind is mostly useless used with libc6-i386. In other words there is no libc6-i386-dbg package as you note later: For 64-bit binaries (shown above) /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so (installed by libc6) does have a .gnu_debuglink section pointing to the debug-version of located in /usr/lib/debug (more specifically /usr/lib/debug/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so) which is installed by libc6-dbg. To behave properly, you have two roads, either ask the libc maintainer to provide a libc6-i386-dbg package, which between us, wouldn't really be the proper way, or more simply, use multiarch. For that: # dpkg --add-architecture i386 # apt-get update # apt-get install libc6-i686:i386 libc6-dbg:i386 For *some* reason I don't really understand, the first time I ran your testing-32 I had to specify the full path to the ld.so in this fashion: $ valgrind /lib/i386-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so ./testing-32 But it's now fine and runs properly when I just do: $ valgrind ./testing-32 I've no real clue on *why* it didn't work the first time, probably some kind of ld.so.cache or something. I've put the glibc maintainer in the loop because it's not clear to me why valgrind ./testing-32 failed in the first instance, maybe he'll have a clue, I suspect that ldconfig didn't do the right thing because of the fact that I have three libc's: libc6:amd64, libc6-i686:i386 and libc6-i386:amd64… and it probably picked the wrong ones. If that helps: ld.so.conf:include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:# Multiarch support ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:/lib/i386-linux-gnu ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:/lib/i486-linux-gnu ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf:/usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu ld.so.conf.d/libc.conf:# libc default configuration ld.so.conf.d/libc.conf:/usr/local/lib ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-gnu.conf:# Multiarch support ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-gnu.conf:/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu ld.so.conf.d/x86_64-linux-gnu.conf:/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu ld.so.conf.d/zz_i386-biarch-compat.conf:# Legacy biarch compatibility support ld.so.conf.d/zz_i386-biarch-compat.conf:/lib32 ld.so.conf.d/zz_i386-biarch-compat.conf:/usr/lib32 Though I'm totally unable to reproduce it so maybe we can waive it as a spurious bug. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··Omadco...@debian.org OOOhttp://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120403085454.gb5...@madism.org
Bug#667023: src:eglibc: please provide a binary package for the x32 sub architecture on amd64
Package: src:eglibc Version: 2.13-27 Severity: normal Tags: upstream Blocks: 667005 gcc-4.7 and binutils (2.22) already provide support for the x32 abi. The missing piece to producing x32 binaries is a c library. Patches are available at git://github.com/hjl-tools/glibc.git. An aspect that makes supporting x32 more difficult is that glibc is currently compiled using gcc-4.4 whereas the x32 abi requires at least gcc-4.7. Switching compiler version is not a lightly taken decision and especially not this late in the freeze process. I estimate the diff between 2.13 and 2.13+x32 to be around 202 files changed, 3967 insertions, 218 deletions, and 568 modifications. Due to the ongoing multiarch transition another question should be asked: Should the new package be libc6-x32:amd64 or libc6:x32? Helmut -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120403130210.GA17099@localhost
Processed: block 667005 with 667023
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 667005 with 667023 Bug #667005 [gcc-4.7-multilib] gcc-4.7-multilib: fails to find libgcc when linking a x32 binary 667005 was not blocked by any bugs. 667005 was not blocking any bugs. Added blocking bug(s) of 667005: 667023 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 667005: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667005 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.133345834615636.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: severity of 667023 is wishlist
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: severity 667023 wishlist Bug #667023 [src:eglibc] src:eglibc: please provide a binary package for the x32 sub architecture on amd64 Severity set to 'wishlist' from 'normal' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 667023: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667023 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.133345942120477.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Processed: block 667023 with 667005
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 667023 with 667005 Bug #667023 [src:eglibc] src:eglibc: please provide a binary package for the x32 sub architecture on amd64 667023 was not blocked by any bugs. 667023 was blocking: 667005 Added blocking bug(s) of 667023: 667005 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 667023: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667023 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.133345943720536.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#667023: src:eglibc: please provide a binary package for the x32 sub architecture on amd64
Le 03/04/2012 15:02, Helmut Grohne a écrit : Package: src:eglibc Version: 2.13-27 Severity: normal Tags: upstream Blocks: 667005 gcc-4.7 and binutils (2.22) already provide support for the x32 abi. The missing piece to producing x32 binaries is a c library. Patches are available at git://github.com/hjl-tools/glibc.git. An aspect that makes supporting x32 more difficult is that glibc is currently compiled using gcc-4.4 whereas the x32 abi requires at least gcc-4.7. Switching compiler version is not a lightly taken decision and especially not this late in the freeze process. I estimate the diff between 2.13 and 2.13+x32 to be around 202 files changed, 3967 insertions, 218 deletions, and 568 modifications. This is not possible until gcc provide libgcc in x32 version. There is kind of a deadlock there. Due to the ongoing multiarch transition another question should be asked: Should the new package be libc6-x32:amd64 or libc6:x32? I don't think we should add yet another bi-arch package, but go for a new architecture, so libc6:x32. Anyway /lib32 is already taken by i386 on amd64, so it's not possible to install x32 in this directory. The best way to have that is therefore to start a new x32 architecture, but that's clearly too late for wheezy. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7afaa2.4070...@aurel32.net
Bug#666774: eglibc: Updated hppa patch set for version 2.13
tag 666774 - moreinfo thanks Le 02/04/2012 13:57, John David Anglin a écrit : On 2-Apr-12, at 4:40 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: tag 666774 + moreinfo thanks Le 01/04/2012 20:48, Dave Anglin a écrit : Source: eglibc Version: 2.13-27 Severity: important Tags: patch The following five patches will be attached to the report: core-2011-08-31.diff ports-2011-08-31.diff ports-2011-09-17.diff ports-2011-10-30.diff ports-2012-03-31.diff core-2011-08-31.diff replaces hppa/local-stack-grows-up.diff. hppa/local-stack-grows-up.diff must be deleted first. The core patch addresses stack grows up issues. The ports patches must be applied in order of date. They address a variety of issues (e.g., udev bootstrap failure due to incorrect flags, various pthread condition failures). The patches have been collected from messages posted to the parisc linux mailing list, and from private work with Carlos O'Donell. I have adjusted the original patches so that they apply to 2.13. Aurelien, would you please apply these changes? Thanks for theses patches. However it seems most of them are already present in the Debian package. Against which version are there supposed to work? The best would be to get these patches against the current Debian package. As noted, the core-2011-08-31.diff patch replaces local-stack-grows- up.diff. The new content in it helps to fix the former pthread condition test failures. Ok, I read it too fast then. I have to say i don't really like the new filenames, as they don't really say what the patch contains beside not being compliant with our policy. The ports patches are completely new. Ok, thank we'll have a look at that for the next upload. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7afb94.6020...@aurel32.net
Processed: Re: Bug#666774: eglibc: Updated hppa patch set for version 2.13
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tag 666774 - moreinfo Bug #666774 [src:eglibc] eglibc: Updated hppa patch set for version 2.13 Removed tag(s) moreinfo. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 666774: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=666774 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.133345986923907.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#666774: eglibc: Updated hppa patch set for version 2.13
On 4/3/2012 9:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: tag 666774 - moreinfo thanks Le 02/04/2012 13:57, John David Anglin a écrit : On 2-Apr-12, at 4:40 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: tag 666774 + moreinfo thanks Le 01/04/2012 20:48, Dave Anglin a écrit : Source: eglibc Version: 2.13-27 Severity: important Tags: patch The following five patches will be attached to the report: core-2011-08-31.diff ports-2011-08-31.diff ports-2011-09-17.diff ports-2011-10-30.diff ports-2012-03-31.diff core-2011-08-31.diff replaces hppa/local-stack-grows-up.diff. hppa/local-stack-grows-up.diff must be deleted first. The core patch addresses stack grows up issues. The ports patches must be applied in order of date. They address a variety of issues (e.g., udev bootstrap failure due to incorrect flags, various pthread condition failures). The patches have been collected from messages posted to the parisc linux mailing list, and from private work with Carlos O'Donell. I have adjusted the original patches so that they apply to 2.13. Aurelien, would you please apply these changes? Thanks for theses patches. However it seems most of them are already present in the Debian package. Against which version are there supposed to work? The best would be to get these patches against the current Debian package. As noted, the core-2011-08-31.diff patch replaces local-stack-grows- up.diff. The new content in it helps to fix the former pthread condition test failures. Ok, I read it too fast then. I have to say i don't really like the new filenames, as they don't really say what the patch contains beside not being compliant with our policy. The ports patches are completely new. Ok, thank we'll have a look at that for the next upload. I have no objection to making the names compliant with your policy. In particular, core-2011-08-31.diff could be named local-stack-grows-up.diff as it's just an update to the previous patch. I just named the patches by date because the ports patches have to be applied in order of date. They all update the hppa changelog file. Regards, Dave -- John David anglindave.ang...@bell.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f7b035b.9090...@bell.net
Processed: block 667023 with 667037
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: block 667023 with 667037 Bug #667023 [src:eglibc] src:eglibc: please provide a binary package for the x32 sub architecture on amd64 667023 was blocked by: 667005 667023 was blocking: 667005 Added blocking bug(s) of 667023: 667037 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 667023: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667023 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.133346560017750.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
