[OE-core] [PATCH] glibc: Update to latest on 2.26 pre-release
Burton, Ross
ross.burton at intel.com
Wed Aug 2 15:13:33 UTC 2017
Various errors in glibc-locale:
| LC_ADDRESS: language abbreviation `agr' not defined
| LC_ADDRESS: terminology language code `azb' not defined
| Makefile:175: recipe for target
'/data/poky-tmp/master/build/work/corei7-64-poky-linux/glibc-locale/2.25.90-r0/locale-tree/usr/lib/locale/agr_PE'
failed
| Makefile:628: recipe for target
'/data/poky-tmp/master/build/work/corei7-64-poky-linux/glibc-locale/2.25.90-r0/locale-tree/usr/lib/locale/az_IR'
failed
ERROR: Task
(/home/ross/Yocto/poky/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-locale_2.25.90.bb:do_package)
failed with exit code '1'
Ross
On 1 August 2017 at 17:34, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
> ---
> .../glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb | 2 +-
> ...ress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch | 90
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb | 3 +-
> 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/
> 0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
> b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
> index 5dd0c70400..6d84e52380 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ SRCBRANCH ?= "master"
> GLIBC_GIT_URI ?= "git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git"
> UPSTREAM_CHECK_GITTAGREGEX = "(?P<pver>\d+\.\d+(\.\d+)*)"
>
> -SRCREV_glibc ?= "43a9f537fc121a867981ca31ea9d79f33ce0fd24"
> +SRCREV_glibc ?= "930324b356778b985d26f30fd0386163852a35fe"
> SRCREV_localedef ?= "dfb4afe551c6c6e94f9cc85417bd1f582168c843"
>
> SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc \
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-
> pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/
> glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..b2bb96b818
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-
> pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
> +From 037283cbc74739b72f36dfec827d120faa243406 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> +From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
> +Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:50:55 +0200
> +Subject: [PATCH 26/26] assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by
> statement
> + expression [BZ# 21242]
> +
> +On 07/05/2017 10:15 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> +> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> +>> On 07/05/2017 05:46 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> +>>> A problem occurs to me: expressions involving VLAs _are_ evaluated
> +>>> inside sizeof.
> +>>
> +>> The type of the sizeof argument would still be int (due to the
> +>> comparison against 0), so this doesn't actually occur.
> +>
> +> I rechecked what C99 says about sizeof and VLAs, and you're right -
> +> the operand of sizeof is only evaluated when sizeof is _directly_
> +> applied to a VLA. So this is indeed safe, but I think this wrinkle
> +> should be mentioned in the comment. Perhaps
> +>
> +> /* The first occurrence of EXPR is not evaluated due to the sizeof,
> +> but will trigger any pedantic warnings masked by the __extension__
> +> for the second occurrence. The explicit comparison against zero
> +> ensures that sizeof is not directly applied to a function pointer or
> +> bit-field (which would be ill-formed) or VLA (which would be
> evaluated). */
> +>
> +> zw
> +
> +What about the attached patch?
> +
> +Siddhesh, is this okay during the freeze? I'd like to backport it to
> +2.25 as well.
> +
> +Thanks,
> +Florian
> +
> +assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement expression
> +
> +2017-07-06 Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat.com>
> +
> + [BZ #21242]
> + * assert/assert.h [__GNUC__ && !__STRICT_ANSI__] (assert):
> + Suppress pedantic warning resulting from statement expression.
> + (__ASSERT_FUNCTION): Add missing __extendsion__.
> +---
> +
> +Upstream-Status: Submitted
> +Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
> +
> + assert/assert.h | 12 +++++++++---
> + 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> +
> +diff --git a/assert/assert.h b/assert/assert.h
> +index 22f019537c..6801cfeb10 100644
> +--- a/assert/assert.h
> ++++ b/assert/assert.h
> +@@ -91,13 +91,19 @@ __END_DECLS
> + ? __ASSERT_VOID_CAST (0) \
> + : __assert_fail (#expr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __ASSERT_FUNCTION))
> + # else
> ++/* The first occurrence of EXPR is not evaluated due to the sizeof,
> ++ but will trigger any pedantic warnings masked by the __extension__
> ++ for the second occurrence. The explicit comparison against zero is
> ++ required to support function pointers and bit fields in this
> ++ context, and to suppress the evaluation of variable length
> ++ arrays. */
> + # define assert(expr)
> \
> +- ({
> \
> ++ ((void) sizeof ((expr) == 0), __extension__ ({ \
> + if (expr)
> \
> + ; /* empty */ \
> + else \
> + __assert_fail (#expr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __ASSERT_FUNCTION); \
> +- })
> ++ }))
> + # endif
> +
> + # ifdef __USE_GNU
> +@@ -113,7 +119,7 @@ __END_DECLS
> + C9x has a similar variable called __func__, but prefer the GCC one
> since
> + it demangles C++ function names. */
> + # if defined __cplusplus ? __GNUC_PREREQ (2, 6) : __GNUC_PREREQ (2, 4)
> +-# define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __PRETTY_FUNCTION__
> ++# define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __extension__ __PRETTY_FUNCTION__
> + # else
> + # if defined __STDC_VERSION__ && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L
> + # define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __func__
> +--
> +2.13.3
> +
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
> b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
> index caf1ff4138..6f373520bb 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSES;md5=
> e9a558e243b36d3209f380deb394b213 \
>
> DEPENDS += "gperf-native"
>
> -SRCREV ?= "43a9f537fc121a867981ca31ea9d79f33ce0fd24"
> +SRCREV ?= "930324b356778b985d26f30fd0386163852a35fe"
>
> #SRCBRANCH ?= "release/${PV}/master"
> SRCBRANCH ?= "master"
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc
> \
> file://0023-Define-DUMMY_LOCALE_T-if-not-defined.patch \
> file://0024-elf-dl-deps.c-Make-_dl_build_local_scope-breadth-fir.patch
> \
> file://0025-locale-fix-hard-coded-reference-to-gcc-E.patch \
> + file://0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
> \
> "
>
> NATIVESDKFIXES ?= ""
> --
> 2.13.3
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20170802/b67857d6/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Openembedded-core
mailing list