On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:51:49 +0100 "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > OCaml 4.05 was added to Fedora 27+ recently. Unfortunately, on > aarch64 only, it interacts badly with a change made in binutils 2.29 > which tightens up the rules on relocations for PC-relative addresses. > More details: > > https://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=7585 detailed discussion > https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/1268 partial solution > https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2017-06/msg00171.html binutils change > > This only affects dynamic loading of OCaml modules on aarch64, and in > particular it only affects the Coq theorem prover. This package has a > number of dependencies, so it affects several other packages too. I > believe the complete list is: > > - coq Theorem prover > - frama-c Framework for source code analysis of C software > - gappalib-coq Coq support library for gappa > - why Software verification platform > > I tried very hard to modify the OCaml aarch64 code generator to make > this work, but it seems as if the OCaml front end compiler doesn't > provide enough information for us to know if a particular symbol will > be used outside a module (it just assumes that all non-private symbols > can be used this way). Or something. Anyway I couldn't work out how > to fix it. > > So ... I don't know what to do here, but I guess possible options > include: > > (1) Continue having broken dependencies for the affected packages on > aarch64 for a bit and see if upstream come up with anything. I would lean to that "solution" > > (2) ‘ExcludeArch: aarch64’ on coq and its dependencies. We would of > course file the relavent ExcludeArch bugs. The thing that stops me > doing this is that we're nowhere nearer to having a fix, so it just > punts the problem, plus aarch64 is an important target and Coq is an > important package. > > (3) Disable the problematic coq modules. I'm not clear if they are > necessary however, since I've only used Coq as an end user, I've never > delved into how it works. > > (4) Back out the binutils change? I guess it was made for good > reasons even though it breaks everything. Also it would be a > downstream change which is bad for Fedora, and we'd probably need to > mass-rebuild everything which is even worse. > > (5) Your Plan Here. I would file a bug against binutils to get attention from the maintainer (nickc), not sure he is monitoring this list. Dan > > Suggestions? > > Rich. > > -- > Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones > Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com > Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and > build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
