Re: GCC 8 ABI change on x86_64

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:52:05PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 10:25 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:20:18PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > > I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order
> > > > to
> > > > find out
> > > > which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16. 
> > > 
> > > How we find out the same problem in packages from external repos ? 
> > 
> > I don't know; I've only rebuilt all rawhide packages.  
> 
> You rebuilt all packages and found what packages was different ? that'sit ? 

The bug affected solely x86_64 and the test mass rebuilt was thus performed
solely on x86_64, on non-koji boxes (even when the compiler for checking
this was twice as slow as normally).  Rebuilding all packages again on all
architectures would be certainly much more CPU time.

Jakub
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GCC 8 ABI change on x86_64

[Sérgio Basto]

On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 10:25 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:20:18PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order
> > > to
> > > find out
> > > which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16. 
> > 
> > How we find out the same problem in packages from external repos ? 
> 
> I don't know; I've only rebuilt all rawhide packages.  

You rebuilt all packages and found what packages was different ? that'sit ? 

> Were the external
> packages built with gcc 8? 

RPMFusion

> If not, we're fine.
> 
>   Marek
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- 
Sérgio M. B.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GCC 8 ABI change on x86_64

[Marek Polacek]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:19:15PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Recently we discovered a serious bug in the compiler whereby we miscompiled
> > several packages.  The problem started with my ABI-changing patch which 
> > changed
> > how empty classes are passed, as per the x86_64 psABI (so this bug only 
> > affects
> > x86_64).  The problem could arise when the code contained empty class 
> > templates.  
> > For more info see .
> > 
> > I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order to find out
> > which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16.  Sorry about
> > this.
> > 
> > This is the list:
> 
> I've fired rebuilds of every package on the list, for F28 and Rawhide.
> I'll investigate any failures and put together an F28 update tomorrow.

Excellent.  I saw many failures due to "missing package".  Otherwise you
can take a look at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/FL4RYJ2NDEFT5CFB5JXI4OCL7VY5QCWJ/
to see if some failures persist.

Marek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GCC 8 ABI change on x86_64

[Marek Polacek]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:36:29PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 12:27:34PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > > Recently we discovered a serious bug in the compiler whereby we 
> > > miscompiled
> > > several packages.  The problem started with my ABI-changing patch which 
> > > changed
> > > how empty classes are passed, as per the x86_64 psABI (so this bug only 
> > > affects
> > > x86_64).  The problem could arise when the code contained empty class 
> > > templates.  
> > > For more info see .
> > > 
> > > I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order to find 
> > > out
> > > which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16.  Sorry 
> > > about
> > > this.
> > > 
> > > This is the list:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >   xautolock-2.2-18.fc24.src.rpm
> > 
> > This seems like an odd entry. How can a package last built for F24
> > possibly be affected?
> 
> Just guessing; Marek has rebuilt all the non-noarch src.rpm for rawhide

Exactly.

> and the package build diagnosed the ABI incompatibility.  Perhaps the build
> normally only fails later than where the ABI issue was spotted.
> 
> The instrumented GCC had a new option to compile using the previous
> (8.0.1-0.15 and earlier) wrong behavior and compiled everything twice,
> comparing dumps on what would be produced between the two.

Of course packages that were never built with gcc 8 are not affected, and need
not be rebuilt, but the list doesn't reflect that.  

Marek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GCC 8 ABI change on x86_64

[Marek Polacek]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:20:18PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order to
> > find out
> > which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16. 
> 
> How we find out the same problem in packages from external repos ? 

I don't know; I've only rebuilt all rawhide packages.  Were the external
packages built with gcc 8?  If not, we're fine.

Marek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GCC 8 ABI change on x86_64

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Recently we discovered a serious bug in the compiler whereby we miscompiled
> several packages.  The problem started with my ABI-changing patch which 
> changed
> how empty classes are passed, as per the x86_64 psABI (so this bug only 
> affects
> x86_64).  The problem could arise when the code contained empty class 
> templates.  
> For more info see .
> 
> I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order to find out
> which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16.  Sorry about
> this.
> 
> This is the list:

I've fired rebuilds of every package on the list, for F28 and Rawhide.
I'll investigate any failures and put together an F28 update tomorrow.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GCC 8 ABI change on x86_64

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 12:27:34PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Recently we discovered a serious bug in the compiler whereby we miscompiled
> > several packages.  The problem started with my ABI-changing patch which 
> > changed
> > how empty classes are passed, as per the x86_64 psABI (so this bug only 
> > affects
> > x86_64).  The problem could arise when the code contained empty class 
> > templates.  
> > For more info see .
> > 
> > I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order to find out
> > which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16.  Sorry about
> > this.
> > 
> > This is the list:
> 
> 
> 
> >   xautolock-2.2-18.fc24.src.rpm
> 
> This seems like an odd entry. How can a package last built for F24
> possibly be affected?

Just guessing; Marek has rebuilt all the non-noarch src.rpm for rawhide
and the package build diagnosed the ABI incompatibility.  Perhaps the build
normally only fails later than where the ABI issue was spotted.

The instrumented GCC had a new option to compile using the previous
(8.0.1-0.15 and earlier) wrong behavior and compiled everything twice,
comparing dumps on what would be produced between the two.

Jakub
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GCC 8 ABI change on x86_64

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Recently we discovered a serious bug in the compiler whereby we miscompiled
> several packages.  The problem started with my ABI-changing patch which 
> changed
> how empty classes are passed, as per the x86_64 psABI (so this bug only 
> affects
> x86_64).  The problem could arise when the code contained empty class 
> templates.  
> For more info see .
> 
> I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order to find out
> which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16.  Sorry about
> this.
> 
> This is the list:



>   xautolock-2.2-18.fc24.src.rpm

This seems like an odd entry. How can a package last built for F24
possibly be affected?

Other than that...this is a bit awkward as F28 is now in freeze. I will
try and rebuild all the affected packages and submit an update and an
FE bug.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GCC 8 ABI change on x86_64

[Sérgio Basto]

On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order to
> find out
> which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16. 

How we find out the same problem in packages from external repos ? 

Thanks, 
-- 
Sérgio M. B.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org