Re: [gentoo-amd64] gcc-4.0.1 compiled glibc-2.3.5.20050722, SUCCESS! Was: broken (32bit) glibc ?

[Jeremy Huddleston <eradicator@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2706 bytes --]

> I haven't looked at the gcc ebuilds to verify, but I'm guessing the
> pro-police stack-protector (and therefore the normal default no- flag that
> would turn it off if a hardened profile enabling it by default was in use)
> stuff isn't in the default gcc-3.4.x either, but rather a patch added by
> the ebuild.  gcc4 hasn't gotten to the point yet where hardened is looking
> at it much, so the equivalent patches haven't been added there, yet, so
> gcc4 ebuilds don't recognize the stack-protector flags.

Yeah.  I'm prolly not going to consider unmasking gcc4 for atleast 6
months, and even then it'd be within testing profiles only.  I think
halcy0n is the only one *really* following gcc4 development closely
among those maintaining the gentoo toolchain.  I've tried it out every
few months, but it's still too slow for your average applications
(huge/complex C++ applications get speed boosts), and it still pushes
out too much buggy code.  This is expected, though, with a .0 release.
4.0.1 is better, but there's still many regressions.

> OTOH, I found yet another package that doesn't yet like gcc4, as well. 
> util-linux emerges fine with gcc4, which is why I hadn't noticed it b4,
> but I tried running cfdisk, and it segfaulted every single time I tried to
> load my hard drive!  Interestingly enough, it worked fine as a user (that
> is, it protested about device access permissions and quit, as one would
> expect trying to run it as a user), and even worked just fine when I
> mistakenly pointed it at my DVD burner with a burnt DVD+R loaded (well it
> said read-only mode, but I wouldn't have expected it to work on the DVD at
> all, and it did), but it'd segfault every time I tried to point it at my
> hard drive, as root so it could actually read it.  I run 100% reiserfs
> formatted hard drive partitions, however, and I'm guessing its reiserfs
> code isn't gcc4 safe, just yet, tho as I said it emerged fine.  Since it
> worked with ISO9660 (surprising me), I'm guessing it probably works with
> the more common ext2/3 as well.  It certainly doesn't like reiserfs, tho,
> when compiled with gcc4!  As expected, recompiling it with gcc-3.4.4
> worked just fine.  (In fact, it was after that remerge that I forgot I had
> gcc-3.4.4 selected and did the entire glibc with gcc-3.4.4 instead of the
> gcc-4.0.1 I had intended!)

reiserfs is buggy when using a good compiler... I don't want to imagine
what happens with a beta compiler ;)  Also, don't rule out glibc as the
culprit for util-linux failing.  Recompile it with gcc3.4 with a gcc4
glibc to rule that out and make sure it's code generated by gcc4 IN
util-linux that's the problem.



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]