That's not true; most architectures don't have a match for SO_RCVTIMEO,
as they're using the definition from asm-generic, just as powerpc should
be. The others were updated differently because they do not include asm-
generic/socket.h. And powerpc clearly does have a definition for it,
since the build complains that SO_RCVTIMEO_OLD is not defined and not
SO_RCVTIMEO. The question is why isn't SO_RCVTIMEO_OLD defined.
I tried cross-compiling the following for ppc64el and did not receive
any errors about SO_RCVTIMEO or SO_RCVTIMEO_OLD being undefined, nor did
it complain when I used SO_RCVTIMEO_OLD, so it seems like it's working
as intended. That leaves me wondering whether something isn't including
asm-generic/socket.h when it should be including asm/socket.h, or
something like that. I don't see any such mistakes in linux-libc-dev
though.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
int main(void)
{
printf("%d\n", SO_RCVTIMEO);
return 0;
}
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1836045
Title:
ftbfs: gnat cross targeting powerpc
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-8-cross/+bug/1836045/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
