Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 13:33 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:16:00 PM EST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > > > I proposed a change to redhat-rpm-config to handle this case by
> > > > > 
> > > > > allowing  package to add a single line to their .spec file to turn off
> > > > > the new common symbol handling.  Igor rejected that change arguing that
> > > > > the packages themselves should be fixed.
> > > > 
> > > > Ultimately yes they should be fixed, but giving a means of easily
> > > > mitigating the problem while people work with upstream to fix the
> > > > issues is also useful, it's been a problem for ever and expecting
> > > > people to fix it in short order is problematic especially when they'll
> > > > start to be deluged in FTBFS spam within moments of the mass rebuild.
> > > 
> > > That was the idea.   Provide a trivial opt-out so that upstreams had
> > > time to fix properly.  I even volunteered to add the opt-out marker
> > > where appropriate to minimize the FTBFS issues.  I also volunteered to
> > > help with the packages that don't honor flags injection.
> > 
> > This sounds reasonable to me.
> > 
> > The PR is
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/77
> > 
> > I have reopened it.
> > 
> > The mass rebuild will notify the maintainrs and they can use that macro to
> > short-workaround the problem. It' also easier to grep from the specs than
> > custom patches and whatnots
> 
> I need something like this for suricata. It has about 45 variables causing 
> this. And it's not a simple "extern" addition because it looks like in many 
> cases the variable was never placed in a C file. Simply adding extern keyword 
> leads undefined reference errors. This will take a while to sort out with 
> upstream.
You also have to be careful if you're building shared libraries -- I
was looking at a package (I forget which) which built multiple DSOs. 
If you're not careful you can end up with some DSOs which wouldn't have
the definition -- worse yet, you're not going to get an undefined
symbol when you build those DSOs.

jeff
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux