[SM-Discuss] GCC 4.3 not quite ready for primetime

Eric Sandall eric at sandall.us
Fri Apr 11 18:24:29 EDT 2008


On Friday 11 April 2008 12:16:50 David Kowis wrote:
> Quoting Eric Sandall <eric at sandall.us>:
> > Use a newer kernel. :)
>
> so 2.6.24.4 isn't new enough? it's the latest in test...

Hrm...I have 2.6.24.4 compiling on my x86_64 box, but on three x86 boxes, it 
fails with:
...
 LD      .tmp_vmlinux1
kernel/built-in.o: In function `getnstimeofday':
(.text+0x1ae2b): undefined reference to `__umoddi3'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `getnstimeofday':
(.text+0x1ae4e): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `do_gettimeofday':
(.text+0x1af60): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `do_gettimeofday':
(.text+0x1af7e): undefined reference to `__umoddi3'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `timekeeping_resume':
timekeeping.c:(.text+0x1b1f6): undefined reference to `__umoddi3'
timekeeping.c:(.text+0x1b216): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `update_wall_time':
(.text+0x1b520): undefined reference to `__umoddi3'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `update_wall_time':
(.text+0x1b540): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `update_wall_time':
(.text+0x1b9a8): undefined reference to `__umoddi3'
kernel/built-in.o: In function `update_wall_time':
(.text+0x1b9c8): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1

> > As for spell failures...the spells which fail for you are working on
> > three of my boxes (two x86 and one x86_64). The only major issue I've run
> > into is gnupg, which I'm testing now (thanks to Ladislav's hint) and will
> > try to find a good fix, otherwise I'll just revert the latest curl.
>
> Well on a new install, switching to test from whatever comes on the
> latest devel iso, causes it to fail a sorcery rebuild.

I didn't try that, but rather from one test to another test grimoire.

> > I have 600+ spells compiling fine.
>
> We must have some kind of creep. Are you testing from test or from
> stable? Do we want to care about things like this? I mean, we support
> from 4.2.3 to 4.3.0 but not from 4.1 to 4.3 .
>
> Just food for thought, because my upgrade path went terribly, but
> yours is working fine. Our paths must be different somehow.

I would like to support stable -> test, since test will eventually become a 
stable release and not everyone updates every stable release.

Do you recall what errors you were getting? Did gcc, g++, and glibc all 
compile fine for you?

-sandalle

-- 
Eric Sandall                     |  Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61  |  http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/          |  http://counter.li.org/  #196285
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20080411/061f3aa0/attachment.bin 


More information about the SM-Discuss mailing list