| 1 |
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 05:11:56PM +0200, Davide Cittaro wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On May 28, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Bryan Østergaard wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> >On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Davide Cittaro wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>Hi all, I've found that glibc 2.5+ cannot be compiled on my alpha, as |
| 7 |
> >>reported on gentoo bugzilla by another person. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >>http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179353 |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >>I have a couple of questions, then: |
| 12 |
> >>1- it is safe to use '-nptlonly' flag? |
| 13 |
> >Not really. In the past we've found Linuxthreads to be unstable and |
| 14 |
> >nptlonly is much preferred for that reason (we had programs randomly |
| 15 |
> >crashing with Linuxthreads and no problems with NPTL). |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> After 1 hour of building I've discovered that glibc doesn't compile |
| 19 |
> even without nptlonly flag |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> >>2- when the patched glibc will be available in portage (comment 2 of |
| 22 |
> >>that bug has been posted one week ago)? |
| 23 |
> >As soon as glibc upstream fixes the problem. Meanwhile you have two |
| 24 |
> >different options. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> >1. Upgrade to binutils >=2.17.50.0.15 and risk possible unknown bugs |
| 27 |
> >from doing so. |
| 28 |
> >2. Ignoring glibc-2.5 updates until upstream fixes the issue. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> >My recommendation would be to wait and not try to work around the |
| 31 |
> >issue |
| 32 |
> >yourself. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Unfortunately I have strict times and this general system update has |
| 35 |
> been scheduled for this week. Since glibc-2.5-r2 is marked stable on |
| 36 |
> alpha I thought I wouldn't run into such issues... :-( |
| 37 |
> If I upgrade binutils can I use both nptl* flags? |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
I'd still recommend putting this particular update off tbh. I would have |
| 40 |
stabled binutils-2.17.50.16 already if I was sure it wouldn't cause |
| 41 |
other problems. As it is we really haven't tested it well enough to |
| 42 |
stable it yet and you can't downgrade binutils again if it turns out to |
| 43 |
be a bad idea running .2.17.50.*. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
That said, if you really really want to go through with this then |
| 46 |
2.17.50.16 does solve the glibc compilation problems with nptlonly. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Regards, |
| 49 |
Bryan Østergaard |
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list |
Archives