Re: Fedora Linux 40 Final Freeze

On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:33:04PM +0530, Samyak Jain wrote: > Today, 2024-04-02, is an important day on the Fedora Linux 40 schedule > [1], with significant cut-offs. > > Today we have the Final Freeze [2] which starts at 14:00 UTC. This means > that only packages that fix accepted blocker or

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 01:36:48PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > Unrelated to the idea that some packages are special in this way, it's > probably worth writing some static analysis tools we could put into > rpm-inspect to detect when (a) a binary grows new public keys it didn't > have before, and

Re: Dropping libdv i686

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 08:41:38PM +0100, Antonio T. sagitter wrote: > libdv is currently failing in i686 architectures, it could be dropped. Ugh, why? The bug is not from upstream, but from the downstream libdv-pic.patch patch, and is on i686 only because those changes are in i686 specific code.

Re: GCC perhaps not honoring -std?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:34:37AM -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote: > I am getting an error "template-id not allowed for constructor in C++20" but > according to the Copr log [0], the compiler is being given -std=c++17: It is a warning, but you've asked for all warnings to be errors, right? As

Re: Help needed to fix FTBFS in scikit learn

On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 10:03:39PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote: > Hello, currently python-scikit-learn fails to build in f40 and rawhide > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261602 > > The problem is a series of incompatible pointer conversions that > appear in cython generated C code.

Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:57:21PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > For the first issue, please try this GHC patch (only compile-tested with > the stage 0 compiler build this point): > > diff --git a/compiler/GHC/HsToCore/Foreign/C.hs > b/compiler/GHC/HsToCore/Foreign/C.hs > index

Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:13:08AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > We noticed that some ghc-* packages FTBFS with Modern C failures eg > these two picked at random: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113534568 >

Re: FYI: AFL++ now builds a GCC plugin

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 01:50:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 12:38:31PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Not sure if it helps but it seems these source files implement the > > plugin: > > > > https://github.com/AFLplusplus/AFLplusplus/

Re: FYI: AFL++ now builds a GCC plugin

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 12:38:31PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Not sure if it helps but it seems these source files implement the > plugin: > > https://github.com/AFLplusplus/AFLplusplus/blob/stable/instrumentation/afl-gcc-cmplog-pass.so.cc >

Re: FYI: AFL++ now builds a GCC plugin

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 11:54:23AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113035034 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262539 > > The new AFL++ (American Fuzzy Lop, a fuzzing tool) in Rawhide appears > to be building a GCC plugin,

Re: internal compiler error: in backward_pass, at tree-vect-slp.cc

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:59:55AM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On Fri, 2024-01-26 at 15:45 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > Hi, > > > > MLT failed to build [2] with [1] , what do you suggest ? > > > > Best regards, > > > > [1] > > builddir/build/BUILD/mlt-7.22.0/src/modules/gdk/pixops.c:

Re: GCC 14 error for asio

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 12:23:27PM +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > asio started failing to build with gcc-14 [1]. The error is: Seems (thanks Patrick for reducing and analyzing it) it is a GCC bug, https://gcc.gnu.org/PR113544 Hopefully it will be fixed soon. Jakub --

Re: AusweisApp2 build failed on rawhide/x86_64 (unsupported reloc 43)

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 02:27:58PM +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > AusweisApp2-2.0.3 build failed on rawhide/x86_64 with unsupported reloc 43 > errors [1]. Other architectures have built fine, similarly to released > branches. Is this a problem with rawhide ld.gold? I thought reloc 43 (aka

Re: Build error with GCC 14, not even a warning in GCC 13

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 03:32:14PM -0800, Aleksei Bavshin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:07 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > > > I'm working on getting a new dependency of one of my packages into Fedora: > > > > https://github.com/socketio/socket.io-client-cpp/releases > > > > After doing

Re: side-tag with GCC 14.0.1 snapshot for Fedora 40

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 01:21:19PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > The f40-build-side-81394 side-tag contains new > > gcc, annobin, libtool and redhat-rpm-config for f40, meant to be > > tagged into rawhide shortly before the mass rebuild. > > >

Re: side-tag with GCC 14.0.1 snapshot for Fedora 40

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 09:33:34PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 02:01:06PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > The f40-build-side-81394 side-tag contains new > > gcc, annobin, libtool and redhat-rpm-config for f40, meant to be >

Re: side-tag with GCC 14.0.1 snapshot for Fedora 40

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 01:15:12PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Mon, 2024-01-15 at 14:01 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > The f40-build-side-81394 side-tag contains new > > gcc, annobin, libtool and redhat-rpm-config for f40, meant to be > > tagged into rawhide shortly be

side-tag with GCC 14.0.1 snapshot for Fedora 40

Hi! The f40-build-side-81394 side-tag contains new gcc, annobin, libtool and redhat-rpm-config for f40, meant to be tagged into rawhide shortly before the mass rebuild. If there is anything you'd like to rebuild against it before the mass rebuild (such as packages depending on Ada which like

Re: Update on the Modern C initiative

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 04:38:55AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: > > The final patches for GCC 14 are currently under upstream review and > > should land very soon. Earlier, I had received feedback that the larger > > community desires just one transition, so we end

Re: Fedora 39 Mass Rebuild

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 12:40:15PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Samyak Jain: > > > - GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.2, binutils 2.40, glibc 2.38, gdb 13.2) > > This change has not yet been voted on by Fesco, so it's largely not > included in the rebuild: gcc was still using a 13.1 version,

Re: C-specific compiler parameters (was: Update on Changes/PortingToModernC)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:09:10AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: > > I am going to explore a way to land -Werror=implicit-int > > -Werror=implicit-function-declaration among the default compiler flags. > > There's a bit of an issue because the C++ front end warns on > > those

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin > > Jambor: https://jamborm.github.io/spec-2022-07-29-levels/ > > This is very …

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 01:11:13PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 13:03, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Do you know anything about what's happening with Ceph? > > No idea, sorry. Ceph is likely #2169364 aka https://gcc.gnu.org/PR108773 , still unresolved GCC bug.

Re: Fedora 38 mass rebuild is finished

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:01:39PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 7:20 AM Richard Shaw wrote: > > > hobbes1069 (9): > > cqrlog - Fails for some weird lazbuild issue I don't understand > > flnet - Spec conditional oops. Fixed. > > flrig - Needed cstdint. Fixed > > freecad -

Re: Fedora 38 mass rebuild is finished

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:00:47AM +0300, Vascom wrote: > I have some packages failed. > One of them libtins. Problem is that: > > error: 'uint32_t' is not a member of 'std'; > > Is it normal? Is it GCC 13 change? See https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/porting_to.html#header-dep-changes Some libstdc++

Re: Yet another unwinding approach

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 03:01:19PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 07:22 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > >> If the unwind information is incomplete, this … > >> > >> > 7) signal handler unwinds the calling thread however it wants (and can > >> > sleep and take page faults

Re: GCC 13 broke 50 packages requiring libgnat-12.so() and libgnarl-12.so()

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:24:16PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 01:24:45PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > Hello. GCC was updated to 13 in rawhide while the Fedora change was still > > > being voted about by FES

Re: GCC 13 broke 50 packages requiring libgnat-12.so() and libgnarl-12.so()

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 01:24:45PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello. GCC was updated to 13 in rawhide while the Fedora change was still > being voted about by FESCo. > > Apparently, the following packages now don't install: There is a mass rebuild tomorrow. The Ada soname changes every year

Re: vtk build failure with gcc 13.0.0 - enum class

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 09:36:39PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > elaborated-type-specifier for a scoped enum must not use the 'class' keyword >33 | enum class EndiannessType : std::uint8_t > | ^ The actual bug is shown in later errors. > 'int32_t' is not a member of 'std';

Re: -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 and other compiler flags stored in Python

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 08:42:32PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 16. 01. 23 20:30, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > If it is for distribution packages then I reckon the flags should be > > as close as possible for the mere reason of consistency within the > > distribution. > > Nope, the individual

Re: F38 proposal: Add _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 to distribution build flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 06:29:10PM -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:41 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > I've filed a ccache bug. It looks like ccache is moving the compiler > > > arguments around, causing one of the -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE to the e

Re: F38 proposal: Add _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 to distribution build flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 06:44:22PM -0500, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:43 PM Siddhesh Poyarekar > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:37 PM Siddhesh Poyarekar > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 3:05 PM Michel Alexandre Salim > > > wrote: > > > > Just

Re: GCC Fedora - relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_32S against `.rodata'

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 01:49:00PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 12:12:42PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > For KVM AMD SEV-SNP virtualization we're trying to get SVSM guest > > firmware built on Fedora. > > > > https://gith

Re: GCC Fedora - relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_32S against `.rodata'

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 12:12:42PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > For KVM AMD SEV-SNP virtualization we're trying to get SVSM guest > firmware built on Fedora. > > https://github.com/svsm-vtpm/linux-svsm > > It builds successfully on Ubuntu 22.04 (gcc 11.3.0) which is what upstream > uses

Re: F38 proposal: Add _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 to distribution build flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 05:46:11PM -, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > Now, about prologues/epilogues. What percentage of useful workload is spent > in those? Tiny fraction of a percent at best? Even if we don't get accurate > stack trace in such cases it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of

Re: F38 proposal: Add _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 to distribution build flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 08:13:51AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > "may improve" is proven to be "does improve significantly". We had That is nonsense. Even with -fno-omit-frame-pointers, you can't rely on frame pointers, they are not accurate in function prologues and epilogues and they are total

Re: F38 proposal: Add _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 to distribution build flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 11:13:38AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 05/12/2022 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote: > > Replace the current `_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2` with `_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3` to > > improve mitigation of security issues arising from buffer overflows in > > packages in Fedora. > > AFAIK,

Re: F40 proposal: Porting Fedora to Modern C (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 07:06:43AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > == User Experience == > > User experience does not change. > > "The new default for C standard is -c99. Users who want to use > an older standard need to specify something like -c89." (???) It is -std=c89/-std=gnu89

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 09:51:42AM -0700, John Reiser wrote: > > it's clear there's a documentation problem [with DT_GNU_HASH] > Partly due to lack of documentation, already I have seen "abuses" So what is https://akkadia.org/drepper/dsohowto.pdf

Re: glibc 2.36 and DT_HASH (preserving it for F37+)

On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 12:05:11PM +0200, Jan Drögehoff wrote: > > It's Epic's fault. They must update their anti-cheat to use the modern > > API. > > More reports have come out claiming this also affects the game Shovel > Knight[2] and the open source library libstrangle[3], there is the non 0 >

Re: FESCo wants to know what you use i686 packages for

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 09:54:12AM -0400, David Cantrell wrote: > If you use i686 packages for something now, please respond to this thread. I use {glibc{,-devel,-static},{gmp,mpfr,libmpc}{,-devel}}.i686 for development and testing of GCC, even in Fedora packages I'd strongly prefer to keep the

Re: mold linker

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 04:26:11PM -0500, Ken Dreyer wrote: > Some of the Ceph developers were investigating mold, since Ceph takes > so long to build. Linking time is a problem for us with Ceph. But I > don't know if those interested Ceph developers have done benchmarks > yet. > > And the lack

Re: mold linker

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 01:29:00PM -0500, Ben Beasley wrote: > In RPM packaging, of course, everything is built from scratch, usually with > LTO, and a package that takes a minute to link probably takes an hour to > build. While any work that can be saved in an RPM build is helpful, I think > the

Re: strange ppc64le failures

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 07:49:45PM +0100, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Hello, > I've got a very suspiciously looking compilation issues while building > PSPP package. All other arches are good except for ppc64le. Just grep > for "error:" in the log attached. > > *

Re: gcc-12.0.1-0.3.fc36 now in rawhide

On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 02:55:14PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > > > Apparently it was annobin (although it passed the test done during > > > gcc.spec > > > testing, apparently it was incompatible again). > > > Florian has rebuilt it, so please just retry. > > > Hi, > > after a few days, it

Re: openCOLLADA armv7hl only build failure

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 08:00:48AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > /builddir/build/BUILD/OpenCOLLADA-1.6.68/Externals/MathMLSolver/src/MathMLEvaluatorVisitor.cpp:1: > /builddir/build/BUILD/OpenCOLLADA-1.6.68/Externals/MathMLSolver/include/MathMLError.h: > In destructor 'virtual

Re: -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE not defined errors

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 04:03:06PM +1000, Bob Hepple wrote: > One of my packages, stable for a long time, is now getting exotic > errors in rawhide such as > > -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE not defined > -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS not defined > > Yesterday I saw (somewhere in here) that those errors are fixed in

Re: mass rebuild status - 2022-01-25

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:01:40PM +0100, František Šumšal wrote: > Looks like the culprit is: > > In file included from common/mptPathString.cpp:13: > ./src/mpt/uuid/uuid.hpp: In constructor 'constexpr > mpt::mpt_libopenmpt::UUID::UUID()': > ./src/mpt/uuid/uuid.hpp:195:17: error: 'goto' is not

Re: gcc-12.0.1-0.3.fc36 now in rawhide

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > A new gcc with most importantly the https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172 > > bug (that caused a lot of ppc64le failures) fixed and various other > > fixes (e

gcc-12.0.1-0.3.fc36 now in rawhide

Hi! A new gcc with most importantly the https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172 bug (that caused a lot of ppc64le failures) fixed and various other fixes (e.g. std::basic_string(std::nullptr_t) = deleted only done for C++23 etc.) is now in rawhide. Can rel-eng please retry all FTBS builds that failed on

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:36:43PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:29:37PM +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > > > > **Compilation error from a dependency header:** > > > > > > > > dependency “boost”: “# error "Never use directly; in

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:29:37PM +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > > > **Compilation error from a dependency header:** > > > > > > dependency “boost”: “# error "Never use directly; include > > > instead."”, via > > > boost/multiprecision/cpp_int/intel_intrinsics.hpp > > > > This is weird. > >

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 09:00:13AM -0500, Ben Beasley wrote: > **Internal compiler or debugger error:** > > abseil-cpp: “internal compiler error: tree code 'template_type_parm' is not > supported in LTO streams” Dunno, would need to reproduce. > debugbreak: %check uses gdb, which now crashes

Re: mass rebuild status - 2022-01-24

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:15:42PM +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > > Perhaps we could merge today and then do another pass of failed builds > > into f36-rebuild tag and merge that back on thursday or something? > > Can we easily identify those builds that failed due to these ppc64le > > issues? > > it

Re: mass rebuild status - 2022-01-24

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 08:00:31PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 24/01/2022 19:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > This seems kind of high, so we are going to resubmit all the failed > > builds in a short second round to reduce the chance of transitory issues > > causing the build failures. >

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 07:15:19AM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 2:28 PM Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > > > >> The long double change is an ABI change, so this is kind of expected. > >> Mass rebuild unfortunately doesn't go according to the dependency graph > >> (and > >>

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:55:39AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Have the command line arguments that are accepted by gcc? > > The test suite of the "cc" crate (used for compiling and linking to C > code within Rust projects) started failing with GCC 12 with this > error: > > gcc: error:

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 11:39:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 14/01/2022 15:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > gcc 12 snapshot has landed as the system compiler into rawhide today. > > Another ICE on ppc64le with all packages contains catch2 library

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 09:56:24AM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > I know you want FTBFS bugs now for gcc-12 issues, but let me run this by > you first and I will open a BZ if necessary. > > For ceph I've hacked up a fix for all the other gcc-12isms in ceph and now > it fails to build on

Re: gcc-12 breaks build with vdr-live with ppc64le on rawhide

On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:01:51PM -, Martin Gansser wrote: > gcc-12 breaks build [1] with vdr-live with ppc64le on rawhide > > g++ -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches > -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 >

Re: F36 Change: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 12, glibc 2.35) (late System-Wide Change proposal)

On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 11:51:37AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > IIRC it wasn't that simple. The necessary entropy was *not* coming > from uninitialized bytes. There were other sources of *real* entropy, > but the Debian patch caused *none* of it to be added to the pool > (except for the PID).

Re: GCC 12 related issues in rawhide

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 07:10:53PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 21. 01. 22 19:07, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 07:00:41PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 21. 01. 22 17:55, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > In all cases, if it is some compiler er

Re: GCC 12 related issues in rawhide

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 07:00:41PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 21. 01. 22 17:55, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > In all cases, if it is some compiler error or internal compiler error, > > preprocessed source + gcc command line would be highly appreciated, > > having us

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 06:42:23PM +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > > > > > > Also note that libmpc failed to build on ppc64le only: > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81535783 > > > > one test core-dumps, I will try a local build to see what's in the core > > Error for

GCC 12 related issues in rawhide

Hi! There have been way too many mails recently in the gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide thread and separate threads, so for those which we haven't responded to yet or new issues, can I ask you to track it in bugzilla instead of mailing list? For issues where you suspect it is a bug on a package

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 07:50:58AM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > I thought I'd solved all my gcc-12-isms in ceph by running --scratch > --arch-override=x86_64 builds, so I tried a full build and ran into this on > aarch64. :-( > > In file included from /usr/include/boost/integer.hpp:20, >

Re: GCC 12 no longer understands -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc,trace-cmp

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 09:15:04AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > honggfuzz fails to build in Rawhide with: > > + hfuzz_cc/hfuzz-gcc hello.c -o hello > gcc: error: unrecognized argument in option > '-fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc,trace-cmp' > gcc: note: valid arguments to

Re: ppc64le: SLOF failed to rebuild: error: unrecognized argument in option '-mtune=generic'

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 09:08:35AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81468000 > > This seems like a compiler bug or a bug in the standard switches being > added by RPM on ppc64le. SLOF itself does not appear to add or adjust > the -mtune

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 02:31:52PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 02:30:24PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > The qemu bug led to this optimizer mis-compilation bug which seems > > very serious: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103721 > >

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 01:32:26PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 13:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 12:54, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > > > > > > > > I thought I'd solved all my gcc-12-isms in ceph by running --scratch > > > --arch-override=x86_64

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide - s390x regression ?

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 07:27:44AM +0100, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 14/01/2022 à 15:31, Jakub Jelinek a écrit : > > gcc 12 snapshot has landed as the system compiler into rawhide today. > > PHP is now FTBFS on s390x only > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 03:13:22PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Mon, 2022-01-17 at 14:36 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-01-17 at 15:10 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > > On 17/01/2022 15:00, Ben Beasley wrote: > > > > dependency “json”:

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 07:22:00PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> On aarch64 I actually got a slightly different error message: > >> > >> ld: criu/pie/restorer.o: in function `lsm_set_label': > >> /drone/src/criu/pie/restorer.c:174: undefined reference to `strlen' > >> > >>

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 07:08:00PM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote: > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 05:56:45PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 05:40:31PM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote: > > > > If there are bugs on the compiler side, please let me know immediately,

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 05:40:31PM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote: > > If there are bugs on the compiler side, please let me know immediately, > > so that those bugs can be fixed before the mass rebuild next week. > > Not sure if it is a bug, CRIU no longer works with GCC 12. > > CRIU creates

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:23:07AM +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > > The -mabi=ieeelongdouble defaulting gcc is now in the > > f36-build-side-49600 side-tag (gcc -0.5.1.fc36, same as -0.5.fc36 in > > rawhide except for the different ppc64le default ABI). > > is it right, that the attribute appears only

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 12:38:26PM +0100, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 at 15:53, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > > FlexiBLAS is FTBFS in rawhide [1], and upstream has managed to create a MWE > > that doesn't involve FlexiBLAS [2]. So it seems like an issue specific to > > CMake +

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 01:37:08PM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote: > > For kernel, the only bug on the GCC side I'm aware of is > > https://gcc.gnu.org/PR101941 > > We are seeing similar issues in a few different files depending on > arch. Largely due to options compiled in and compile order,

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:27:15PM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote: > > gcc 12 snapshot has landed as the system compiler into rawhide today. > > GCC 12 is going to enter its stage4 development phase (only regression > > and documentation bugfixes allowed) on Monday 17th, so there should be > > just

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 02:59:15PM -, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: > I tried compiling colobot with the new gcc, expecting it to break in some > new and fascinating way, and got the following error: > > In function 'std::char_traits::copy(char*, char const*, unsigned long)', > inlined

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 01:18:51PM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > Ceph fails with gcc-12 too. > > scratch build at > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81280838 > > upstream ceph bug at https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/53896 That looks like a ceph bug. C++ says std::unique_ptr

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 05:58:10PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I tried recompiling qemu and it fails with an odd error in the RCU > torture test. Bug submitted upstream here: > > https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/823 > > ... but since GCC 12 is the only big thing that has

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 01:18:51PM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > Ceph fails with gcc-12 too. > > scratch build at > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81280838 > > upstream ceph bug at https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/53896 Can you please mail me preprocessed source on which

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 04:07:08PM +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > > Another important thing I wanted to say is that we'd like to switch > > ppc64le from the numerically problematic IBM extended long double to > > IEEE 754 quad long double. This is an ABI change. Some libraries > > are already built

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 01:06:48PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 14/01/2022 15:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > gcc 12 snapshot has landed as the system compiler into rawhide today. > > On ppc64le: > > gcc -c -std=gnu99 -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexcepti

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

CCing Martin. On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 09:04:35AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > There is a new warning in gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36.x86_64. In this code: > > int > guestfs_int_create_socketname (guestfs_h *g, const char *filename, > char

gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

Hi! gcc 12 snapshot has landed as the system compiler into rawhide today. GCC 12 is going to enter its stage4 development phase (only regression and documentation bugfixes allowed) on Monday 17th, so there should be just those bugfixes and not new features etc. anymore.

Re: GCC crash on Fedora Rawhide armv7

On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 05:19:09PM +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > > | ^ > > Please submit a full bug report, > > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > > See for instructions. > > Preprocessed source stored into /tmp/ccOFlWwZ.out file, please

Re: LTO objects after build: Rebuilding vs erroring out

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:13:19PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > with somehting that errors out (fails the build) if any relocatable > > object files (.o) or static archives (.a) by default, and stop producing > > object code by default, only LTO representation. If a special > > redhat-rpm-config

Re: F36 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 10:26:20AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > We checked compression, and it just isn't worth it. When you compress > > 100–200 bytes, the output might be a tiny bit smaller, but then the > > compression alg header is added it becomes a wash. And we lose an

Re: F36 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 10:56:04AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> The general case of any statically linked code. It could be libgcc, > >> startup files, the non-shared bits of glibc, static-only libraries, or > >> header-only C++ libraries. > > > This would be indeed useful, but quite harder

Re: F36 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:09:00PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > === New system: `.note.package` === > > The new note is created and propagated similarly to > `.note.gnu.build-id`. The difference is that we inject the information > about package ''nevra'' from the build system. Is the .note.package

Re: Stability of armv7hl builders

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 03:22:13PM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > I asked this in another thread, but maybe this is related to [1]? How > do we disable just link-time parallelism? gcc uses its --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto --enable-link-serialization=1 when building gcc with LTO is enabled and

Stability of armv7hl builders

Hi! I've been trying to build gcc in rawhide and f35 for more than a week now, but haven't succeeded due to instability of the armv7hl builders. E.g. the https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77117620 build succeeded on all but armv7hl in less than 22 hours (on aarch64 even took

Re: i686 build OOMing

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 04:57:03AM +1000, David Airlie wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 04:59:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > On 5/18/2021 4:44 PM, David Airlie wrote: > > > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3814/68223814/build.log > > > > > > > > cd > > > >

Re: F35 Change: CompilerPolicy Change (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 09:51:50AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 4/24/2021 8:26 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 23 2021 at 08:01:03 PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek > > wrote: > > > I'll be probably repeating myself, but the two compilers are known to be >

Re: F35 Change: CompilerPolicy Change (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 09:43:34AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 4/26/2021 8:20 AM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Kevin, I'd love to support your stance and use GCC. However, there are > > > reasons why we will need to consider Clang for e.g. Ruby: > > > > > >

Re: F35 Change: CompilerPolicy Change (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:18:59AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > The Red Hat tools team believes that LLVM/Clang and GCC should be > considered equals from > a Fedora policy standpoint. Selection of one toolchain over the other should > be > driven by the packager's preferences not by Fedora

Re: unrecognized DWARF version in .debug_info at 6

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 05:54:48AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 1/27/21 5:48 AM, Sandro Mani wrote: > > Apitrace is currently failing to build, with [1] > > > > Test project > > /builddir/build/BUILD/apitrace-37c36e66b8cfa534797ca565c22e8c30923f35d4/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu > > Start 1:

Re: unrecognized DWARF version in .debug_info at 6

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 01:48:55PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: > Hi > > Apitrace is currently failing to build, with [1] > > Test project > /builddir/build/BUILD/apitrace-37c36e66b8cfa534797ca565c22e8c30923f35d4/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu > Start 1: libbacktrace_btest > 1/6 Test #1:

  1   2   3   4   5   >