Now after we have understood it we know the fix is actually in binutils.
Furthermore any other third party code (or even a few other FTBFS in Eoan)
could be due to that.
IMHO that is a high prio to fix before Eoan as it would not be a new bug bur a
regression.
I'll set it as critical, but it is up to you having more experience in such
issues.
@Doko - can we get this fixed in Eoan?
** Changed in: ipxe (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Christian Ehrhardt (paelzer) => (unassigned)
** Changed in: ipxe (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Invalid
** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Critical
** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Matthias Klose (doko)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to binutils in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1843394
Title:
FTBFS in Eoan - Error: operand type mismatch for `push' - gcc 9.2.1 /
binutils 2.32.51.20190905-0ubuntu1
Status in binutils:
Fix Released
Status in binutils package in Ubuntu:
New
Status in ipxe package in Ubuntu:
Invalid
Bug description:
This might be due to new gcc-9 being more strict, but the build that
worked before now fails with:
arch/x86_64/core/gdbidt.S: Assembler messages:
arch/x86_64/core/gdbidt.S:109: Error: operand type mismatch for `push'
arch/x86_64/core/gdbidt.S:110: Error: operand type mismatch for `push'
arch/x86_64/core/gdbidt.S:161: Error: operand type mismatch for `pop'
arch/x86_64/core/gdbidt.S:162: Error: operand type mismatch for `pop'
make[2]: *** [Makefile.housekeeping:937: bin-x86_64-efi/gdbidt.o] Error 1
Full log at: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/441262285/buildlog_ubuntu-
eoan-amd64.ipxe_1.0.0+git-20190109.133f4c4-0ubuntu2_BUILDING.txt.gz
Now all of this is about push/pop of %fs and %gs.
That needs to match the size of the registers which depend on the current
running mode.
In this particular case in ./src/arch/x86_64/core/gdbidt.S
The failing file is in ".code64" mode.
In that I'd expect %gs/%fs to be 64 bit.
Usually we see push/pop "w" in .code16 (word), l in .code32 (long) but in
that sense here q (quad word) seems right at first (should be what correctly
matches the .code64).
That matches what I see throughout the ipxe code but also throughout the
archive
https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=pop%5Ba-z%5D.*%25fs&literal=0&page=2
Maybe I misread the mode it is in, or it is actually a false positives.
Or the sizes of FS/GS do not change - haven't touched them in a loooong time.
Was it that segment registers didn't change size?
I'll need to do a few checks to first see what the compiler would expect
there and from there need to understand this.
The command used also points to AS being in 64 bit mode when this happens:
gcc -E -DARCH=x86_64 -DPLATFORM=efi -DSECUREBOOT=0 -fstrength-reduce
-fomit-frame-pointer -falign-jumps=1 -falign-loops=1 -falign-functions=1 -m64
-mno-mmx -mno-sse -fshort-wchar -Ui386 -Ulinux -DNVALGRIND -fpie -mno-red-zone
-Iinclude -I. -Iarch/x86/include -Iarch/x86_64/include
-Iarch/x86_64/include/efi -Os -g -ffreestanding -Wall -W -Wformat-nonliteral
-fno-stack-protector -fno-dwarf2-cfi-asm -fno-exceptions -fno-unwind-tables
-fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -Wno-address -Wno-stringop-truncation
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -include include/compiler.h -DASM_TCHAR='@'
-DASM_TCHAR_OPS='@' -DASSEMBLY -DOBJECT=gdbidt arch/x86_64/core/gdbidt.S | as
--64 -o bin-x86_64-efi/gdbidt.o
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/binutils/+bug/1843394/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
