Bug#953540: [Aspectc-developers] Fwd: Bug#953540: aspectc++: FTBFS on armel
Hi Reinhard, I have added "-Wl,--as-needed -latomic -Wl,--no-as-needed" to the Makefile. It is not exactly your patch, but should do it. Let me know if it doesn't. - Olaf Am 17.03.20 um 22:35 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: > Control: forwarded -1 aspectc-develop...@aspectc.org > > Hi Adrian, > > Olaf, the upstream developer, has a question regarding your patch to > aspectc++. > Would you mind having a look and ideally sharing your reply to everyone? > > Thank you! > -rt > > On 3/17/20 11:05 AM, Olaf Spinczyk wrote: >> Hi Reinhard! >> >> Do you understand the reasons behind the patch? >> >> The difference is the following addition for linking: >> >> -Wl,--as-needed -latomic -Wl,--no-as-needed >> >> (1) I wonder why the atomics (e.g. __atomic_fetch_add_4) are not >> available by default in armel. They seem to be on most other platforms. >> >> (2) Why is "--as-needed ... --no-as-needed" necessary? >> >> (3) Could -latomic also be placed at the end of the list of libraries >> (behind the additional libraries needed for Clang 9.0.x)? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Olaf >> >> Am 17.03.20 um 14:10 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: >>> Hi aspect c++ developers, >>> >>> Would the attached patch be acceptable for svn trunk? >>> >>> Please have a look at the Debian bug for context. I'm happy to clarify any >>> questions. >>> >>> Best >>> Rt >>> >>> >>> Original Message >>> From: Adrian Bunk >>> Sent: March 17, 2020 7:04:58 AM EDT >>> To: Ivo De Decker , 953...@bugs.debian.org >>> Subject: Bug#953540: aspectc++: FTBFS on armel >>> >>> Control: tags -1 patch >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:12:16AM +, Ivo De Decker wrote: package: src:aspectc++ version: 1:2.2+git20200229-1 severity: serious tags: ftbfs Hi, The latest upload of aspectc++ to unstable fails on armel: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=aspectc%2B%2B >>> Fix attached. >>> Cheers, Ivo >>> cu >>> Adrian >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> aspectc-developers mailing list >>> aspectc-develop...@aspectc.org >>> http://aspectc.org/listinfo/aspectc-developers >>> >> ___ >> aspectc-developers mailing list >> aspectc-develop...@aspectc.org >> http://aspectc.org/listinfo/aspectc-developers >> > ___ > aspectc-developers mailing list > aspectc-develop...@aspectc.org > http://aspectc.org/listinfo/aspectc-developers
Bug#953540: [Aspectc-developers] Fwd: Bug#953540: aspectc++: FTBFS on armel
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 05:35:13PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Control: forwarded -1 aspectc-develop...@aspectc.org > > Hi Adrian, > > Olaf, the upstream developer, has a question regarding your patch to > aspectc++. > Would you mind having a look and ideally sharing your reply to everyone? > > Thank you! > -rt > > On 3/17/20 11:05 AM, Olaf Spinczyk wrote: > > Hi Reinhard! > > > > Do you understand the reasons behind the patch? > > > > The difference is the following addition for linking: > > > > -Wl,--as-needed -latomic -Wl,--no-as-needed > > > > (1) I wonder why the atomics (e.g. __atomic_fetch_add_4) are not > > available by default in armel. They seem to be on most other platforms. Most other platforms have processor instructions for atomics. Older arm processors do not,[1] they are implemented with a kernel helper. It is a bug in gcc that linking with libatomic is not done automatically: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358 > > (2) Why is "--as-needed ... --no-as-needed" necessary? It is not necessary. It avoids linking with libatomic when it is not needed on other platforms. > > (3) Could -latomic also be placed at the end of the list of libraries > > (behind the additional libraries needed for Clang 9.0.x)? The further behind the better, it has to come after static libraries using it. > > Cheers, > > > > Olaf cu Adrian [1] The Debian armel port currently has a port baseline of armv5, the Debian armhf port (including the raspbian rebuild) target more recent processors with atomic instructions.
Bug#953540: [Aspectc-developers] Fwd: Bug#953540: aspectc++: FTBFS on armel
Control: forwarded -1 aspectc-develop...@aspectc.org Hi Adrian, Olaf, the upstream developer, has a question regarding your patch to aspectc++. Would you mind having a look and ideally sharing your reply to everyone? Thank you! -rt On 3/17/20 11:05 AM, Olaf Spinczyk wrote: > Hi Reinhard! > > Do you understand the reasons behind the patch? > > The difference is the following addition for linking: > > -Wl,--as-needed -latomic -Wl,--no-as-needed > > (1) I wonder why the atomics (e.g. __atomic_fetch_add_4) are not > available by default in armel. They seem to be on most other platforms. > > (2) Why is "--as-needed ... --no-as-needed" necessary? > > (3) Could -latomic also be placed at the end of the list of libraries > (behind the additional libraries needed for Clang 9.0.x)? > > Cheers, > > Olaf > > Am 17.03.20 um 14:10 schrieb Reinhard Tartler: >> Hi aspect c++ developers, >> >> Would the attached patch be acceptable for svn trunk? >> >> Please have a look at the Debian bug for context. I'm happy to clarify any >> questions. >> >> Best >> Rt >> >> >> Original Message >> From: Adrian Bunk >> Sent: March 17, 2020 7:04:58 AM EDT >> To: Ivo De Decker , 953...@bugs.debian.org >> Subject: Bug#953540: aspectc++: FTBFS on armel >> >> Control: tags -1 patch >> >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:12:16AM +, Ivo De Decker wrote: >>> package: src:aspectc++ >>> version: 1:2.2+git20200229-1 >>> severity: serious >>> tags: ftbfs >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The latest upload of aspectc++ to unstable fails on armel: >>> >>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=aspectc%2B%2B >> >> Fix attached. >> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Ivo >> >> cu >> Adrian >> >> >> ___ >> aspectc-developers mailing list >> aspectc-develop...@aspectc.org >> http://aspectc.org/listinfo/aspectc-developers >> > ___ > aspectc-developers mailing list > aspectc-develop...@aspectc.org > http://aspectc.org/listinfo/aspectc-developers >
