From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98C5A20248 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:16:32 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=pewIdBUJKG3wxLoF W/xlpZm6idwbegiA5RibP8N3K44LJ/tC3qthhnKtMQ3iJH8xDlUL9Wfr3EhnlWHv ued6E5a1UhqLXVPW+eMbYnjbP1+doQX6ncl16XhmS9gbV3s23QnU67jpqNhuwRPT w4Luoj6UB0aJ1ihxKtnLcX911M0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=ixIZHVS+NosQ/2iGjqd2hu 8e+2Y=; b=vj5FT6Pjab9Js453Rq8Tttitz9clPpVU8w3RzetuGltxz7BBQLewDA XqrI3fpuzVBnjB6CNciklkVT+YYXHHHzFsmPrYcQSt+V1wwz/CQZjoGCK85AeRW+ xhdFloPuNdWyGHE8xR1g1TFVkk8C2Vl/+JRvuvdi6JK290Rqta7uE= Received: (qmail 25725 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2019 11:16:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 25715 invoked by uid 89); 11 Mar 2019 11:16:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: shared-ano163.rev.nazwa.pl Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:16:52 +0100 (CET) From: Rafal Luzynski To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Florian Weimer , GNU C Library Message-ID: <765038260.19567.1552303012823@poczta.nazwa.pl> In-Reply-To: <56767244.124440.1551692830069@poczta.nazwa.pl> References: <87mumqei4h.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <87a7ihv84x.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <14742246.106524.1551401420668@poczta.nazwa.pl> <1577213550.68939.1551428748720@poczta.nazwa.pl> <87va13m1g9.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> <1069861979.75290.1551438219460@poczta.nazwa.pl> <683980565.96624.1551486843351@poczta.nazwa.pl> <56767244.124440.1551692830069@poczta.nazwa.pl> Subject: Re: [PATCH] elf: Add tests with a local IFUNC resolver [BZ #23937] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 4.03.2019 10:47 Rafal Luzynski wrote: > > 2.03.2019 17:54 "H.J. Lu" wrote: > > > > [...] > > GCC 6.4.1 and binutils 2.31 branch work for me on x86-64. > > Still the same failure. > > I've also checked a similar virtual machine on another physical > machine and again the same failure which confirms that it is not > anything specific to one CPU model. > > Does it maybe matter that all my tests are performed in virtual > machines controlled by VirtualBox? I've made several more tests during the weekend and it seems that it's GCC version what matters. Just to summarize: my basic test environment is Fedora 24 (yes, I know, it is old) but I am able to install packages from newer versions. I definitely have not tested every single version of GCC but 7.2.1-2 and everything newer worked fine while 7.1.1-3 and everything older failed at these tests. I did not touch binutils during these tests so I assume that its version does not matter. Thoughts? Should we state that GCC 7.2 is a minimum required version to build Glibc? Should these tests have additional checks and XFAIL in some versions of GCC? Should we assume that the failures are correct and Glibc may be compiled with that particular version of GCC but only if GCC has some patches fixing any known bugs? Also, it's likely that it's not GCC what is problematic but some other package pulled by GCC, for example libtool. Please help. Regards, Rafal