On 2023-12-31 10:32, Matthias Klose wrote:
> please also check
>
> - that a cross compiler with this patch has these enabled
>
> - that a cross build of gcc-13 targeting arm64 with this
>patch has these enabled
There have been a few gcc-12 and gcc-13 updates since I initially sent my
Control: retitle -1 gcc-13 FTCBFS: nvptx does not cross compile
On 2024-01-06 01:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
> no, the target is always nvptx-unknown-none.
Ack, but in order to cross build nvptx we probably have to set build and
host? I tried cross building gcc 13.2.0-23 on a x86 system with:
Hi Matthias,
On 2023-11-28 05:00, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Let me know if this is what you were looking for.
Both #1055711 and #1057469 have been open for several months now, and
they are blocking progress on enabling BTI in Debian (and Ubuntu). See
https://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/PAC
Source: gcc-14
Version: 14-20240201-2
Severity: serious
Tags: sid ftbfs
User: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: arm64
gcc-14 currently FTBFS on arm64 due to an upstream regression. Last known
working version was 20240131.
during GIMPLE pass: widening_mul
../../src/gcc/value-range-storage.cc:
Hi,
On 2022-07-26 12:07, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> (sid_armel-dchroot)mitya57@amdahl:~$ gcc -fsanitize=address test.c
> /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabi/12/libasan.so: undefined
> reference to `__atomic_store_8'
> /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabi/12/libasan.so: undefined
>
Control: tags -1 patch
On 2024-01-29 10:23, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> Upstream proposed two patches though, the one I tried is:
>
> libatomic_la_LIBADD += $(addsuffix _8_2_.lo,$(SIZEOBJS))
> +libatomic_la_LIBADD += tas_1_2_.lo
The problem was not the patch, but the fact that it did
On 2024-01-29 09:04, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> Guess that doesn't solve it them, as it's the same problem, the meson
> build tests are failing, all of these should be 'YES':
Upstream proposed two patches though, the one I tried is:
libatomic_la_LIBADD += $(addsuffix _8_2_.lo,$(SIZEOBJS))
40127/debian/changelog
--- gcc-14-14-20240127/debian/changelog 2024-01-27 09:51:04.0 +0100
+++ gcc-14-14-20240127/debian/changelog 2024-01-29 19:55:54.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+gcc-14 (14-20240127-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Add upstream patch libatomic-armel.diff.
+
+ -- Em
Hi Luca,
On 2024-01-29 01:33, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> This causes systemd to FTBFS on armel since the new upload of
> libatomic-14. No other architecture is affected.
>
> cc -o systemd-cryptsetup
> systemd-cryptsetup.p/src_cryptsetup_cryptsetup-keyfile.c.o
>
Hi Matthias,
On 2024-01-23 09:01, Matthias Klose wrote:
> This is a long standing, re-occurring issue which never has been
> forwarded and committed by the armel ports to GCC upstream.
You seem to be aware of previous occurrences of this issue. Please share
the details you have available such as
Hi Matthias,
On 2023-12-31 10:32, Matthias Klose wrote:
> please also check
>
> - that a cross compiler with this patch has these enabled
>
> - that a cross build of gcc-13 targeting arm64 with this
>patch has these enabled
Very good point, indeed the original patch I sent did not
Source: gcc-13
Version: 13.2.0-9
User: debian-cr...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ftcbfs
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-cr...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
cross-building the native compiler (build_type = cross-build-native)
fails due to (1) an issue with m2, and (2) nvptx being confused about
the host/target system.
Hey Aurelien,
On 2023-12-05 08:32, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> What about the patch below, it basically just change the compiler to
> always enable -mbranch-protection=standard, and it's also used for the
> configure script.
> --- glibc-2.37/debian/sysdeps/arm64.mk
> +++
Package: gcc-12
Version: 12.3.0-12
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-...@lists.debian.org, debian-gl...@lists.debian.org
Dear Maintainer,
PAC/BTI is a useful Arm security feature, see this recent presentation
at the Cambridge Mini Debconf for all details: [0]
In order to properly support PAC/BTI in Debian
Hello Aurelien,
On 2023-12-03 01:08, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2023-11-29 09:56, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
> > To add BTI to the NOTE section of the above, we would need to build both
> > GCC and glibc with -mbranch-protection=standard. For gcc-13 I have
> > proposed https://bu
Hi!
I would like to ask for suggestions about the best way to enable PAC/BTI
support in glibc and GCC on Debian.
PAC and BTI are two useful Arm security features, see this recent
presentation at the Mini Debconf for all details: [0]
In order to properly support PAC/BTI in Debian we need to
ses: #1055711)
+
+ -- Emanuele Rocca Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:22:11 +0100
+
gcc-13 (13.2.0-7) unstable; urgency=medium
* Update to git 20231124 from the gcc-13 branch.
diff -Nru gcc-13-13.2.0/debian/rules2 gcc-13-13.2.0/debian/rules2
--- gcc-13-13.2.0/debian/rules2 2023-10-24 14:39:05.0 +0
Hi Rafael,
On 2023-11-16 08:42, Rafael Laboissière wrote:
> Control: forwarded -1 https://sourceforge.net/p/plplot/bugs/206/
>
> * Rafael Laboissière [2023-11-16 07:51]:
>
> > My guess is that the bug is in PLplot and not in gfortran, but this is
> > just a guess. I will eventually inform the
Hello Rafael!
On 2023-11-15 06:47, Rafael Laboissière wrote:
> Does this mean that the origin of the bug is upstream or that it still may
> be a bug in gfortran?
At this point we know for sure that the issue is not armhf-specific, and
also that it is not caused by stack-clash-protection. On the
Hi Rafael,
On 2023-11-13 05:13, Rafael Laboissière wrote:
> The attached file bug-1055750.tgz contains a minimal code that
> triggers the bug on an armhf system
Thanks! For the record I can reproduce the issue in a armhf chroot, but
*not* on armel and arm64. The only thing to change in the
Package: gcc-13
Version: 13.2.0-6
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
On arm64 dpkg-dev adds -mbranch-protection=standard to the default build
flags since version 1.22.0. However, the flag is not used in Debian and
Ubuntu when building GCC. This means that the feature does not work as
intended
2023-10-09 11:45:48.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+gcc-12 (12.2.0-14+deb12u1) bookworm; urgency=medium
+
+ * Fix -fstack-protector handling of overflows on AArch64 (CVE-2023-4039).
+
+ -- Emanuele Rocca Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:45:48 +0200
+
gcc-12 (12.2.0-14) unstable; urgency=medium
/debian/changelog 2023-10-09 11:45:48.0 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+gcc-12 (12.2.0-14+deb12u1) bookworm; urgency=medium
+
+ * Fix -fstack-protector handling of overflows on AArch64 (CVE-2023-4039).
+
+ -- Emanuele Rocca Mon, 09 Oct 2023 11:45:48 +0200
+
gcc-12 (12.2.0-14) unstable
Hi Matthias,
On 2023-07-12 08:22, Matthias Klose wrote:
> how will you care about build time regressions? The change is not
> difficult, however I'd like to see some commitment how to deal with these
> issues.
Happy to help should any issues arise.
FWIW there's no need to enable all arches in
Source: gcc-13-cross-ports
Version: 6
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
On amd64 hosts all ports are supported (ie: the binary package
gcc-13-alpha-linux-gnu and similar are available). That is not the case
for arm64 hosts. Please add arm64 to HOST_ARCHS_ in d/rules.
Thanks,
Emanuele
Hi,
On 2023-07-08 08:43, Matthias Klose wrote:
> [...]
> checking linker soname option... yes
> checking linker --demangle support... no
> checking linker plugin support... 0
> checking assembler for explicit relocation support... no
> checking assembler for -mno-shared support... no
> checking
Source: gcc-11-cross-mipsen
Version: 5+c3
Hi,
the following two binary packages seem to be missing:
- gcc-11-mips-linux-gnu
- gcc-11-mips-linux-gnu-base
We do however have the equivalent packages for GCC 10, 12, and 13 in
sid.
https://packages.debian.org/unstable/gcc-10-mips-linux-gnu
Hi Svante,
On 09/09 03:34, Svante Signell wrote:
> Currently systemtap FTBFS on GNU/Hurd and GNU/kFreeBSD-any due to
> several linux-specific includes in some .cxx-files and usage of
> PATH_MAX, which does not exist on GNU/Hurd. Additionally, for non-linux
> architectures only systemtap-common,
28 matches
Mail list logo
