Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Markus Trippelsdorf 2012-10-16 15:01:51 UTC
With gcc-4.8 I get (after 1:40 minutes):
test-tgmath2.c: In function ‘test’:
test-tgmath2.c:93:1: note: variable tracking size limit exceeded with -fvar-tracking-assignments, retrying without
test (const int Vint4, const long long int Vllong4)
^
test-tgmath2.c:93:1: note: variable tracking size limit exceeded
(gcc-4.6 and gcc-4.7 compile quicker, but the error is the same)
.
.
.
Comment 1 joseph@codesourcery.com 2012-10-16 15:14:39 UTC
Patches should go to libc-alpha.
.
.
.
Comment 2 Markus Trippelsdorf 2012-11-21 18:11:36 UTC
Closing as wontfix.
OUCH!
Has anyone else run into this while trying to compile a hardened glibc? I'm using gcc-4.5.3 but from the comments in the bug report, newer compilers run into the same problem.
Both ./configure and make executed with clean error logs, but I'm hesitant to install something major with a failed make check report.
How critical is this test, given that the bug has been sitting unresolved for 2 plus years?
Distribution: XCP on Debian Wheezy; Raspbian; HLFS
Posts: 30
Original Poster
Rep:
I saw it. That was the patch Markus Trippelsdorf initially proposed, before saying "Doesn't Fix" a month later and summarily closing the bug. The fallback position for gcc is to do what Markus proposed anyway, then exit with a Type 2 error if the test fails with -fvar disabled. That may be why he threw in the towel.
I have no problem with that, but I wish someone would've then flagged it as trivial (if that's the case) or better yet, dropped the test from the glibc entirely. Now I have to harangue the good people at LQ about whether or not my glibc build is hosed.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
