On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 09:36:29PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 12:27:34PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 19:50 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > Recently we discovered a serious bug in the compiler whereby we miscompiled > > > several packages. The problem started with my ABI-changing patch which changed > > > how empty classes are passed, as per the x86_64 psABI (so this bug only affects > > > x86_64). The problem could arise when the code contained empty class templates. > > > For more info see <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR84502>. > > > > > > I did another mass rebuild with a specially-tweaked gcc in order to find out > > > which packages need to be rebuild with patched gcc-8.0.1-0.16. Sorry about > > > this. > > > > > > This is the list: > > > > <snip> > > > > > xautolock-2.2-18.fc24.src.rpm > > > > This seems like an odd entry. How can a package last built for F24 > > possibly be affected? > > Just guessing; Marek has rebuilt all the non-noarch src.rpm for rawhide Exactly. > and the package build diagnosed the ABI incompatibility. Perhaps the build > normally only fails later than where the ABI issue was spotted. > > The instrumented GCC had a new option to compile using the previous > (8.0.1-0.15 and earlier) wrong behavior and compiled everything twice, > comparing dumps on what would be produced between the two. Of course packages that were never built with gcc 8 are not affected, and need not be rebuilt, but the list doesn't reflect that. Marek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
