[OE-core] [PATCH] glibc: Update to latest on 2.26 pre-release
Khem Raj
raj.khem at gmail.com
Wed Aug 2 20:34:01 UTC 2017
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:13 AM Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com> wrote:
> 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'
>
How to reproduce it
>
> 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/20170802/588f27d7/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Openembedded-core
mailing list