On Thu, 2019-05-09 at 08:08 -0400, Paul Barker wrote: > On Thu, 9 May 2019, at 11:13, Paul Barker wrote: > > On Wed, 8 May 2019, at 14:02, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 11:58:36AM +0000, p...@betafive.co.uk > > > wrote: > > > > ... > > > > +--- strace-4.26.orig/strace.c > > > > ++++ strace-4.26/strace.c > > > > +@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ > > > > + #include <locale.h> > > > > + #include <sys/utsname.h> > > > > + #ifdef HAVE_PRCTL > > > > +-# include <sys/prctl.h> > > > > ++# include <linux/prctl.h> > > > > + #endif > > > > + #include <asm/unistd.h> > > > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_4.26.bb > > > > b/meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_4.26.bb > > > > index 24f92c99e5..b71122babf 100644 > > > > --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_4.26.bb > > > > +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/strace/strace_4.26.bb > > > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ SRC_URI = " > > > > https://strace.io/files/${PV}/strace-${PV}.tar.xz \ > > > > file://0001-caps-abbrev.awk-fix-gawk-s-path.patch \ > > > > file://0001-tests-sigaction-Check-for-mips-and- > > > > alpha-before-usin.patch \ > > > > file://0001-mips-o32-fix-build.patch \ > > > > + file://musl-fixes-armv8.patch \ > > > > " > > > > ... > > > > > > #include <sys/prctl.h> is the documented way for getting the > > > prototype > > > of prctl(), which cannot be in linux/prctl.h for obvious reasons. > > > > > > This patch creates the following problem: > > > > > > ../strace-4.26/strace.c: In function 'startup_child': > > > ../strace-4.26/strace.c:1355:3: warning: implicit declaration of > > > function 'prctl' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > > > prctl(PR_SET_PTRACER, PR_SET_PTRACER_ANY); > > > ^~~~~ > > > > > > > Ah that's definitely not a solution then. I'll have to look into > > this > > further and see if I can come up with a v2 patch that doesn't > > cause > > this warning. > > > > So alpine fixes this by patching the linux headers: > https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/main/linux-headers/fix-aarch64-asm-ptrace.patch > > I think that should be acceptable here if we just do it when building > with musl libc. > > Any thoughts on that before I work up a v2 patch?
This really needs to get fixed upstream. I don't mind a patch but only if its gone upstream, we don't want to be carrying patches to libc- headers. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core