This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Build failure of 2.2.3 and 2.2.4pre2 on sparc-unknown-linux

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Ben Collins stipulated:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 01:04:29PM +0100, Nix wrote:
>> /mnt/tmp/build-glibc/elf/ --library-path /mnt/tmp/build-glibc:/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/math:/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/elf:/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/dlfcn:/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/nss:/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/nis:/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/rt:/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/resolv:/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/crypt:/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/linuxthreads /mnt/tmp/build-glibc/sunrpc/rpcgen -Y gcc -E -c rpcsvc/bootparam_prot.x -o /mnt/tmp/build-glibc/sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.T
>> make[2]: *** [/mnt/tmp/build-glibc/sunrpc/xbootparam_prot.stmp] Segmentation fault
>> make[2]: Leaving directory `/mnt/tmp/glibc-2.2.4/sunrpc'
> This is surely a toolchain bug. I just built 2.2.4-pre2 for sparc-linux
> using gcc-2.95.4, and binutils, with no test case failures.

Gold dust; tool version numbers that work! ;)

I've been finding your diffs (for the Debian libc) damned useful, but of
course they don't say what version of binutils is needed, and
binutils- is present in unstable, which led me astray...

... but, hell, downgrading binutils didn't help; neither did omitting
--enable-omitfp as Andreas suggested. Unless the downgraded binutils was
rendered just as broken by being assembled by the broken one (which is,
I suppose, *possible*) then it's unclear what's going on.

(And, furthermore, even with the GCC atexit patch, I'm still unable to
use atexit; unresolved symbol. The entire reason for my rebuilding libc
in the first place was to see if rebuilding it with a compiler with the
atexit patch would render atexit visible again...)

Someone Up There hates me.

>> I've tried 2.2.4-from-CVS as of just past midnight GMT 2001-08-05 (same
>> as 2.2.4pre2 as far as I can tell); I've tried GCC-2.95.3 and
>> GCC-2.95.4-cvs-head (to get the atexit patch), and I'm using
>> binutils-; I've tried with `-mcpu=v8 -mtune=ultrasparc' and
>> without.
> Isn't the latest binutils having issues on sparc-linux? I haven't

Yes, but they had purportedly been fixed by

2001-07-02  Jakub Jelinek  <>

	* sysdeps/sparc/sparc32/dl-machine.h (elf_machine_rela): Handle
	* sysdeps/sparc/sparc64/dl-machine.h (elf_machine_rela): Likewise.

but it seems (since it works for you and all that differs is the
binutils version) that this doesn't fix all the issues :(

> upgraded my binutils in awhile, since last I checked, there were
> problems of some sort.

... and even with it downgraded, there are still problems. :(

I'll grab the binutils .deb file and extract the binaries from it, and
see if that magic fairy dust helps. (Desperate hopeless wriggling?

`It's all about bossing computers around. Users have to say "please".
Programmers get to say "do what I want NOW or the hard disk gets it".'
                        -- Richard Heathfield on the nature of programming

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]