RE: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

RE: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[jwsacksteder]

I did not see anything hard-coded into it. I did not make much of an effort,
though. I just unpacked the stage1 again. I will rebuild and let you know in
the morning. 

I need to point out that the install-guide tells you to add the "~alpha" to
the config file. That most likely needs to be qualified with "use at your
own risk".

-----Original Message-----
From: Aron Griffis [mailto:agriffis@gentoo.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:44 PM
To: gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...


jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:	[Tue Oct 07 2003, 09:58:59PM EDT]
> So, is it wise to have the bootstrap.sh build this alternate version?

...which is exactly why I just changed it from KEYWORDS=alpha to ~alpha.

Is this all we need to make bootstrap.sh work, or does it have its own
list of "stable" packages.

The problem here is that this version used to work until gcc caught up
and started flagging the errors.. :-(

Aron

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 597 bytes --]

jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:	[Tue Oct 07 2003, 11:23:26PM EDT]
> I did not see anything hard-coded into it. I did not make much of an effort,
> though. I just unpacked the stage1 again. I will rebuild and let you know in
> the morning. 

Cool, thanks

> I need to point out that the install-guide tells you to add the "~alpha" to
> the config file. That most likely needs to be qualified with "use at your
> own risk".

That definitely needs to be fixed.  I've been working on the
KEYWORDS=alpha stuff so it really shouldn't be necessary for everybody
to use ~alpha.

Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[jwsacksteder]

So, is it wise to have the bootstrap.sh build this alternate version?



-----Original Message-----
From: Aron Griffis [mailto:agriffis@gentoo.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:10 PM
To: gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...


jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:	[Mon Oct 06 2003, 07:51:34AM EDT]
> So what is the last 'known good' ebuild?

I suspect glibc-2.3.1-r4.ebuild would work since it doesn't contain the
vfork assembly.

Aron

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 432 bytes --]

jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:	[Tue Oct 07 2003, 09:58:59PM EDT]
> So, is it wise to have the bootstrap.sh build this alternate version?

...which is exactly why I just changed it from KEYWORDS=alpha to ~alpha.

Is this all we need to make bootstrap.sh work, or does it have its own
list of "stable" packages.

The problem here is that this version used to work until gcc caught up
and started flagging the errors.. :-(

Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[jwsacksteder]

So what is the last 'known good' ebuild?

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:07:29 +0200
Mathieu MILLET <htam@coruscant.interne.net> wrote:

> glibc-2.3.2-r1 is broken on alpha. You need a patch that has already
> been integrated in glibc-2.3.2-r6 (well maybe before, but I'm sure for
> this one).
> 
> BUT 2.3.2-r6 has another problem and yet can't be compiled
> too (I have already submitted the bug for 2.3.2-r6, cf. bug#30302).

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[Mathieu MILLET]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 07:51:34AM -0400, jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:
> So what is the last 'known good' ebuild?
 
Sorry, I can't tell you since I blew up my whole package database. I'm
currently re-emerging all my packages hoping that they won't any big
mistakes.

Htam.
--
mailto:htam@nerim.net
----

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 209 bytes --]

jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:	[Mon Oct 06 2003, 07:51:34AM EDT]
> So what is the last 'known good' ebuild?

I suspect glibc-2.3.1-r4.ebuild would work since it doesn't contain the
vfork assembly.

Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[jwsacksteder]

After 3 hours of chewing  on the bootstrap script, glibc produced the
following message. If you have successfully built glibc-2.3.2-r1, please let
me know. 

gcc ../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/alpha/vfork.S -c  -I../include
-I. -
I/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.3.2-r1/work/glibc-2.3.2/buildhere/posix -I..
-I../libi
o  -I/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.3.2-r1/work/glibc-2.3.2/buildhere
-I../linuxthread
s/sysdeps/alpha/elf -I../sysdeps/alpha/elf
-I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/l
inux/alpha -I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux
-I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/p
thread -I../sysdeps/pthread -I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv
-I../linuxthread
s/sysdeps/unix -I../linuxthreads/sysdeps/alpha
-I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/alph
a/alpha -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/alpha -I../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux
-I../sys
deps/gnu -I../sysdeps/unix/common -I../sysdeps/unix/mman
-I../sysdeps/unix/inet
-I../sysdeps/unix/sysv -I../sysdeps/unix/alpha -I../sysdeps/unix
-I../sysdeps/po
six -I../sysdeps/alpha/fpu -I../sysdeps/alpha -I../sysdeps/wordsize-64
-I../sysd
eps/ieee754/flt-32 -I../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64 -I../sysdeps/ieee754
-I../sysdeps
/generic/elf -I../sysdeps/generic  -nostdinc -isystem
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-unk
nown-linux-gnu/3.2.3/include -isystem /usr/include -D_LIBC_REENTRANT
-include ..
/include/libc-symbols.h       -DASSEMBLER   -o
/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.3.2-r1/w
ork/glibc-2.3.2/buildhere/posix/vfork.o
../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/alpha/vfork.S: Assembler messages:
../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/alpha/vfork.S:63: Warning: .ent
directiv
e without matching .end
../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/alpha/vfork.S:63: Error: can't
resolve `
0' {.text section} - `L0' {.text section}
make[2]: ***
[/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.3.2-r1/work/glibc-2.3.2/buildhere/posix/v
fork.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/fork.c: In function `__libc_fork':
../linuxthreads/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/fork.c:39: warning: implicit
declaration
 of function `__syscall_fork'
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.3.2-r1/work/glibc-2.3.2/pos
ix'
make[1]: *** [posix/subdir_lib] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory
`/var/tmp/portage/glibc-2.3.2-r1/work/glibc-2.3.2'
make: *** [all] Error 2

!!! ERROR: sys-libs/glibc-2.3.2-r1 failed.
!!! Function src_compile, Line 310, Exitcode 2
!!! (no error message)

omega portage #
omega portage #

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[Mathieu MILLET]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 12:05:18AM -0400, jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:
> After 3 hours of chewing  on the bootstrap script, glibc produced the
> following message. If you have successfully built glibc-2.3.2-r1, please let
> me know. 
[snip] 
> 

glibc-2.3.2-r1 is broken on alpha. You need a patch that has already
been integrated in glibc-2.3.2-r6 (well maybe before, but I'm sure for
this one).

BUT 2.3.2-r6 has another problem and yet can't be compiled
too (I have already submitted the bug for 2.3.2-r6, cf. bug#30302).

Mathieu.
--
Mathieu MILLET
mailto:htam@nerim.net
----

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[Marc Giger]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:07:29 +0200
Mathieu MILLET <htam@coruscant.interne.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 12:05:18AM -0400,
> jwsacksteder@ramprecision.com wrote:
> > After 3 hours of chewing  on the bootstrap script, glibc produced
> > the following message. If you have successfully built
> > glibc-2.3.2-r1, please let me know. 
> [snip] 
> > 
> 
> glibc-2.3.2-r1 is broken on alpha. You need a patch that has already
> been integrated in glibc-2.3.2-r6 (well maybe before, but I'm sure for
> this one).
> 
> BUT 2.3.2-r6 has another problem and yet can't be compiled
> too (I have already submitted the bug for 2.3.2-r6, cf. bug#30302).

Yeah, I tried to build a cross-compiler for alpha on intel and came to
the same error. I thought it was a error which happens only when I build
a crosscompiler, it seems it isn't the case...

I asked myself (and now you) if it would be good if we place a new
ebuild in the portage tree WITH the latest CVS version of glibc. It has
a lot of fixes for alphas!?!

greets

Marc

--
gentoo-alpha@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-alpha] glibc blew up...

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 811 bytes --]

Mathieu MILLET wrote:	[Mon Oct 06 2003, 02:07:29AM EDT]
> glibc-2.3.2-r1 is broken on alpha. You need a patch that has already
> been integrated in glibc-2.3.2-r6 (well maybe before, but I'm sure for
> this one).

It's only broken with the latest gcc which adds some checks which
weren't there before.  I have glibc-2.3.2-r1 installed on my alpha and
was quite surprised when it wouldn't rebuild...! ;-)

> BUT 2.3.2-r6 has another problem and yet can't be compiled
> too (I have already submitted the bug for 2.3.2-r6, cf. bug#30302).

Yeah, it would be great to get the latest glibc on alpha.  Richard
Henderson has been doing a lot of work on it.

I'll see what I can do about 2.3.2-r6.

On a related note, anybody know what you have to do to make nptl work?
What breaks when you enable it?  Anything?

Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]