On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 02:01:06PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The f40-build-side-81394 side-tag contains new
> gcc, annobin, libtool and redhat-rpm-config for f40, meant to be
> tagged into rawhide shortly before the mass rebuild.
>
> If there is anything you'd like to rebuild against it before the mass
> rebuild (such as packages depending on Ada which like every year bumped
> sonames of its shared libraries), please do so soon.
I didn't build anything into the side tag, but I did download the
packages and rebuilt a few virt-related packages like qemu, libvirt,
virt tools, libguestfs, nbdkit.
One thing I noticed (not virt related) was this PHP bindings failure:
In file included from /usr/include/php/Zend/zend_globals.h:30,
from /usr/include/php/Zend/zend_compile.h:769,
from /usr/include/php/Zend/zend_modules.h:24,
from /usr/include/php/Zend/zend_API.h:25,
from /usr/include/php/main/php.h:35,
from /home/rjones/d/libguestfs/php/extension/guestfs_php.c:44:
/usr/include/php/Zend/zend_atomic.h: In function 'zend_atomic_bool_exchange_ex':
/usr/include/php/Zend/zend_atomic.h:88:16: error: implicit declaration of function '__c11_atomic_exchange'; did you mean '__atomic_exchange'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
88 | return __c11_atomic_exchange(&obj->value, desired, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| __atomic_exchange
/usr/include/php/Zend/zend_atomic.h: In function 'zend_atomic_bool_load_ex':
/usr/include/php/Zend/zend_atomic.h:92:16: error: implicit declaration of function '__c11_atomic_load'; did you mean '__atomic_load'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
92 | return __c11_atomic_load(&obj->value, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| __atomic_load
/usr/include/php/Zend/zend_atomic.h: In function 'zend_atomic_bool_store_ex':
/usr/include/php/Zend/zend_atomic.h:96:9: error: implicit declaration of function '__c11_atomic_store'; did you mean '__atomic_store'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
96 | __c11_atomic_store(&obj->value, desired, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| __atomic_store
Do you think it's OK to go with the suggestion of replacing the
__c11_atomic_* functions with __atomic_* equivalents?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org
--
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
