From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 25 07:14:20 2020 Received: (at 43513) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Sep 2020 11:14:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42849 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kLlgC-0001Cp-Le for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:14:20 -0400 Received: from dd26836.kasserver.com ([85.13.145.193]:41442) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kLlg9-0001Cf-92 for 43513@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:14:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (80-110-126-103.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at [80.110.126.103]) by dd26836.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5B483363FDB; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:13:22 +0200 From: Danny Milosavljevic To: Ludovic =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: bug#43513: json-c build failure (on armhf-linux) while trying to build u-boot Message-ID: <20200925131237.32fc61e9@scratchpost.org> In-Reply-To: <87wo0i17vv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200919173628.423331da@scratchpost.org> <20200921134855.2ed40eb0@scratchpost.org> <87wo0i17vv.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/9l0DOs/iTGvC+rpHr2/TFTB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 43513 Cc: 43513@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) --Sig_/9l0DOs/iTGvC+rpHr2/TFTB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ludo, On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:13:40 +0200 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Let=E2=80=99s fix CMake (and JSON-C?) in =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 o= r =E2=80=98staging=E2=80=99 (using a > graft for CMake wouldn=E2=80=99t help because CMake is used at build time= .) Sure--cmake upstream will fix it anyway and make a new release. But I now opened bug# 43591 on guix-patches in order to find all the OTHER problems this causes we didn't see yet. I already ran it on my laptop in order to find all the users trying to stick a 64-bit value into a 32-bit slot and it looks very bad--there are instances of this problem in libstdc+= +, binutils bfd etcetc. I suggest to delete all ARM substitutes that were built on x86_64 machines and disable the builders using x86_64 to build ARM stuff in the mean time. What that has built is VERY MUCH not reliable since readdir() was broken sporadically--and compilers need that :P > It doesn=E2=80=99t make sense to cross-compile from x86_64 to i686. Inst= ead we > should use a native build, but an i686 one: >=20 > (package/inherit qemu > (arguments `(#:system "i686-linux" ,@(package-arguments qemu)))) Sure. I'm still hoping we can skip the workaround and do the right thing instead (compiling everything with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=3D64 regardless of architect= ure). I thought this matter with making everyone use LFS was settled in about 2007--but no, here we go again :( Even if we did the workaround with qemu here, that still means the kernel (via a compatibility layer) is going to lie to qemu about file offsets and directory entry hashes. That doesn't sound good for reproducibility. Also, I want to be clear that qemu is not at fault here. It's fundamentally unsound to call getdents64 and expect a value with less than 64 bits back. But that is what glibc does. Users (other packages) who use _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=3D32 (by not setting _FILE_OFFSET_BITS at all) in 2020, those are at fault. > Likewise for AArch64/ARMv7. I do not think the X86_32 compatibility layer works on aarch64, so now we h= ave a problem. That means building stuff for ARMv7 on aarch64 is not reliable = at all. The right fix is to always use "-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=3D64" in user space. T= hen none of this weird stuff needs to be done. --Sig_/9l0DOs/iTGvC+rpHr2/TFTB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAl9t0NIACgkQ5xo1VCww uqVZFQf7ByjxtzbOpP5VuFBPsuWRsXJvHOYhpTJLXkgLv0/sDx7Xp0PDvlE7Ec99 Scd7US21nTu1z7SKJoI1RcKJ4vPZQYefobr9a6NYUaXz99J+4rp2x77U+IT+DzIN k+3Z/4kMv6rHZ8iJkB5tVM9H3MJSY8CIxGBPdVlLyi1Uap2eY2r/B3Yi+59wz2jD R3Mz4OBUg5jlqIJwcW7/0LRLxU2PGny42pPlX7DukVUExhoGNiGSMgkt9W/GludP op/9wOKaKFk48vdsUbsLgal9p/bfSn0qKnKXkju2B6T1iD5HFJ0XOpsA9OTcnTbr qO1EZEuUuUZLbfU0Pz8Ovoooe7f2tg== =6a2J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/9l0DOs/iTGvC+rpHr2/TFTB--