binutils: update to 2.29.1
PATCH 1/9 binutils: update to 2.29.1
From: Armin Kuster <[email protected]>
update to 2.29.1 to fix the following missing CVEs:
CVE-2017-15939, CVE-2017-15938, CVE-2017-15225, CVE-2017-15025, CVE-2017-15024, CVE-2017-15023, CVE-2017-15022, CVE-2017-15021, CVE-2017-15020, CVE-2017-14974, CVE-2017-14940, CVE-2017-14939, CVE-2017-14938, CVE-2017-14934, CVE-2017-14933, CVE-2017-14932, CVE-2017-14930, CVE-2017-14745, CVE-2017-14729, CVE-2017-14529, CVE-2017-14333, CVE-2017-14130, CVE-2017-14129, CVE-2017-14128, CVE-2017-13757, CVE-2017-13716, CVE-2017-13710, CVE-2017-12967, CVE-2017-12799, CVE-2017-12459, CVE-2017-12458, CVE-2017-12457, CVE-2017-12456, CVE-2017-12455, CVE-2017-12454, CVE-2017-12453, CVE-2017-12452, CVE-2017-12451, CVE-2017-12450, CVE-2017-12449, CVE-2017-12448
see Changelogs for additional information
---
.../binutils/{binutils-2.29.inc => binutils-2.29.1.inc} | 2 +-
...inutils-cross-canadian_2.29.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.29.1.bb} | 0
.../binutils/{binutils-cross_2.29.bb => binutils-cross_2.29.1.bb} | 0
.../binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.29.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.29.1.bb} | 0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.29.bb => binutils_2.29.1.bb} | 0
5 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.29.inc => binutils-2.29.1.inc} (97%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.29.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.29.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.29.bb => binutils-cross_2.29.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.29.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.29.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.29.bb => binutils_2.29.1.bb} (100%)meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.29.1.inc renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.29.inc +1 -1
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ BINUPV = "${@binutils_branch_version(d)}" UPSTREAM_CHECK_GITTAGREGEX = "binutils-(?P<pver>\d+_(\d_?)*)" -SRCREV = "37e991bb143ca2106330bcdc625590d53838b7a1" +SRCREV = "90276f15379d380761fc499da2ba24cfb3c12a94" SRC_URI = "\ git://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git;branch=binutils-${BINUPV}-branch;protocol=git \ file://0003-configure-widen-the-regexp-for-SH-architectures.patch \
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.29.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross-canadian_2.29.bb +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross_2.29.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross_2.29.bb +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.29.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-crosssdk_2.29.bb +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.29.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils_2.29.bb +0 -0
Signature · 1 line
2.15.1
PATCH 2/9 binutils: Convert SRC_URI and SRCREV to weak defines
This makes it easy to override them in bbappends
--- meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.29.1.inc | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-2.29.1.inc +3 -2
@@ -18,9 +18,10 @@ BINUPV = "${@binutils_branch_version(d)}" UPSTREAM_CHECK_GITTAGREGEX = "binutils-(?P<pver>\d+_(\d_?)*)" -SRCREV = "90276f15379d380761fc499da2ba24cfb3c12a94" +SRCREV ?= "90276f15379d380761fc499da2ba24cfb3c12a94" +BINUTILS_GIT_URI ?= "git://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git;branch=binutils-${BINUPV}-branch;protocol=git" SRC_URI = "\ - git://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git;branch=binutils-${BINUPV}-branch;protocol=git \ + ${BINUTILS_GIT_URI} \ file://0003-configure-widen-the-regexp-for-SH-architectures.patch \ file://0004-Point-scripts-location-to-libdir.patch \ file://0005-Only-generate-an-RPATH-entry-if-LD_RUN_PATH-is-not-e.patch \
Signature · 1 line
2.15.1
PATCH 3/9 gdb: Upgrade to 8.0.1
In reply to Khem RajMinor bugfix release, details are here
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-announce/2017/msg00004.html
---
meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/{gdb-8.0.inc => gdb-8.0.1.inc} | 4 ++--
.../gdb/{gdb-cross-canadian_8.0.bb => gdb-cross-canadian_8.0.1.bb} | 0
meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/{gdb-cross_8.0.bb => gdb-cross_8.0.1.bb} | 0
meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/{gdb_8.0.bb => gdb_8.0.1.bb} | 0
4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/{gdb-8.0.inc => gdb-8.0.1.inc} (88%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/{gdb-cross-canadian_8.0.bb => gdb-cross-canadian_8.0.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/{gdb-cross_8.0.bb => gdb-cross_8.0.1.bb} (100%)
rename meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/{gdb_8.0.bb => gdb_8.0.1.bb} (100%)meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/gdb-8.0.1.inc renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/gdb-8.0.inc +2 -2
@@ -17,6 +17,6 @@ SRC_URI = "http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gdb/gdb-${PV}.tar.xz \ file://0010-resolve-restrict-keyword-conflict.patch \ file://package_devel_gdb_patches_120-sigprocmask-invalid-call.patch \ " -SRC_URI[md5sum] = "c3d35cd949084be53b92cc1e03485f88" -SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "f6a24ffe4917e67014ef9273eb8b547cb96a13e5ca74895b06d683b391f3f4ee" +SRC_URI[md5sum] = "48cac527e6f3018b865ece021e9723ac" +SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "3dbd5f93e36ba2815ad0efab030dcd0c7b211d7b353a40a53f4c02d7d56295e3"
meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/gdb-cross-canadian_8.0.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/gdb-cross-canadian_8.0.bb +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/gdb-cross_8.0.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/gdb-cross_8.0.bb +0 -0
meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/gdb_8.0.1.bb renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/gdb/gdb_8.0.bb +0 -0
Signature · 1 line
2.15.1
PATCH 4/9 gcc6: enable FL_LPAE flag for armv7ve cores
In reply to Khem RajFrom: Andre McCurdy <[email protected]>
The following commit added the FL_LPAE flag to FL_FOR_ARCH7VE, but neglected to also add it to the armv7ve compatible cores defined in arm-cores.def.
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/af2d9b9e58e8be576c53d94f30c48c68146b0c98
The result is that gcc 6.4 now refuses to allow -march=armv7ve and -mcpu=XXX to be used together, even when -mcpu is set to an armv7ve compatible core:
arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc -march=armv7ve -mcpu=cortex-a7 -Werror ...
error: switch -mcpu=cortex-a7 conflicts with -march=armv7ve switch [-Werror]
Fix by defining flags for armv7ve compatible cores directly from FL_FOR_ARCH7VE, rather than re-creating the armv7ve flags independently by combining FL_FOR_ARCH7A with the armv7ve specific FL_THUMB_DIV and FL_ARM_DIV flags.
--- meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-6.4.inc | 1 + ...001-enable-FL_LPAE-flag-for-armv7ve-cores.patch | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-6.4/backport/0001-enable-FL_LPAE-flag-for-armv7ve-cores.patch
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-6.4.inc +1 -0
@@ -81,6 +81,7 @@ SRC_URI = "\ BACKPORTS = "\ file://CVE-2016-6131.patch \ file://0057-ARM-PR-82445-suppress-32-bit-aligned-ldrd-strd-peeph.patch \ + file://0001-enable-FL_LPAE-flag-for-armv7ve-cores.patch \ " SRC_URI[md5sum] = "11ba51a0cfb8471927f387c8895fe232" SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "850bf21eafdfe5cd5f6827148184c08c4a0852a37ccf36ce69855334d2c914d4"
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-6.4/backport/0001-enable-FL_LPAE-flag-for-armv7ve-cores.patch new file +67 -0
67 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.15.1
PATCH 5/9 musl: Disable thumb1 ISA
In reply to Khem RajFrom: Andrea Adami <[email protected]>
thumb1 is unsupported see http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2017/10/20/10
Fix
[YOCTO #12336]
--- meta/recipes-core/musl/musl.inc | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl.inc +5 -0
@@ -26,3 +26,8 @@ INSANE_SKIP_${PN} = "dev-so" # Doesn't compile in MIPS16e mode due to use of hand-written # assembly MIPS_INSTRUCTION_SET = "mips" + +# thumb1 is unsupported +ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET_armv5 = "arm" +ARM_INSTRUCTION_SET_armv4 = "arm" +
Signature · 1 line
2.15.1
PATCH 6/9 musl: Update to latest
In reply to Khem RajThese commits are added
https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/log/?qt=range&q=eb03bde2f24582874cb72b56c7811bf51da0c817..4000b0107ddd7fe733fa31d4f078c6fcd35851d6
Key fix for malloc
https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?id=a71b46cfd289aa0ff829fc9a436c59c398f8326d
--- meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
meta/recipes-core/musl/musl_git.bb +1 -1
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ require musl.inc -SRCREV = "eb03bde2f24582874cb72b56c7811bf51da0c817" +SRCREV = "4000b0107ddd7fe733fa31d4f078c6fcd35851d6" PV = "1.1.18+git${SRCPV}"
Signature · 1 line
2.15.1
PATCH 7/9 glibc: Upgrade to latest on 2.26 release
In reply to Khem RajFor detailed view of changes see
https://github.com/kraj/glibc/compare/glibc-2.26...77f921dac17c5fa99bd9e926d926c327982895f7
drop upstreamed 1 patch
--- ...ress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch | 90 ---------------------- meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.26.bb | 3 +- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 92 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch deleted +0 -90
@@ -1,90 +0,0 @@ -From 037283cbc74739b72f36dfec827d120faa243406 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 -From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com> -Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:50:55 +0200 -Subject: [PATCH 26/26] assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement - expression [BZ# 21242] - -On 07/05/2017 10:15 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: -> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Florian Weimer <[email protected]> wrote: ->> On 07/05/2017 05:46 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: ->>> A problem occurs to me: expressions involving VLAs _are_ evaluated ->>> inside sizeof. ->> ->> The type of the sizeof argument would still be int (due to the ->> comparison against 0), so this doesn't actually occur. -> -> I rechecked what C99 says about sizeof and VLAs, and you're right - -> the operand of sizeof is only evaluated when sizeof is _directly_ -> applied to a VLA. So this is indeed safe, but I think this wrinkle -> should be mentioned in the comment. Perhaps -> -> /* The first occurrence of EXPR is not evaluated due to the sizeof, -> but will trigger any pedantic warnings masked by the __extension__ -> for the second occurrence. The explicit comparison against zero -> ensures that sizeof is not directly applied to a function pointer or -> bit-field (which would be ill-formed) or VLA (which would be evaluated). */ -> -> zw - -What about the attached patch? - -Siddhesh, is this okay during the freeze? I'd like to backport it to -2.25 as well. - -Thanks, -Florian - -assert: Suppress pedantic warning caused by statement expression - -2017-07-06 Florian Weimer <[email protected]> - - [BZ #21242] - * assert/assert.h [__GNUC__ && !__STRICT_ANSI__] (assert): - Suppress pedantic warning resulting from statement expression. - (__ASSERT_FUNCTION): Add missing __extendsion__. ---- - -Upstream-Status: Submitted -Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <[email protected]> - - assert/assert.h | 12 +++++++++--- - 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) - -diff --git a/assert/assert.h b/assert/assert.h -index 22f019537c..6801cfeb10 100644 ---- a/assert/assert.h -+++ b/assert/assert.h -@@ -91,13 +91,19 @@ __END_DECLS - ? __ASSERT_VOID_CAST (0) \ - : __assert_fail (#expr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __ASSERT_FUNCTION)) - # else -+/* The first occurrence of EXPR is not evaluated due to the sizeof, -+ but will trigger any pedantic warnings masked by the __extension__ -+ for the second occurrence. The explicit comparison against zero is -+ required to support function pointers and bit fields in this -+ context, and to suppress the evaluation of variable length -+ arrays. */ - # define assert(expr) \ -- ({ \ -+ ((void) sizeof ((expr) == 0), __extension__ ({ \ - if (expr) \ - ; /* empty */ \ - else \ - __assert_fail (#expr, __FILE__, __LINE__, __ASSERT_FUNCTION); \ -- }) -+ })) - # endif - - # ifdef __USE_GNU -@@ -113,7 +119,7 @@ __END_DECLS - C9x has a similar variable called __func__, but prefer the GCC one since - it demangles C++ function names. */ - # if defined __cplusplus ? __GNUC_PREREQ (2, 6) : __GNUC_PREREQ (2, 4) --# define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ -+# define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __extension__ __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ - # else - # if defined __STDC_VERSION__ && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L - # define __ASSERT_FUNCTION __func__ --- -2.13.3 -
meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.26.bb +1 -2
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSES;md5=e9a558e243b36d3209f380deb394b213 \ DEPENDS += "gperf-native" -SRCREV ?= "1c9a5c270d8b66f30dcfaf1cb2d6cf39d3e18369" +SRCREV ?= "77f921dac17c5fa99bd9e926d926c327982895f7" SRCBRANCH ?= "release/${PV}/master"
@@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc \ file://0023-Define-DUMMY_LOCALE_T-if-not-defined.patch \ file://0024-elf-dl-deps.c-Make-_dl_build_local_scope-breadth-fir.patch \ file://0025-locale-fix-hard-coded-reference-to-gcc-E.patch \ - file://0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch \ file://0027-glibc-reset-dl-load-write-lock-after-forking.patch \ file://0028-Bug-4578-add-ld.so-lock-while-fork.patch \ "
Signature · 1 line
2.15.1
PATCH 8/9 gcc-7.2: Fix libgfortran build
In reply to Khem RajFrom: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <[email protected]>
Without this patch libbacktrace cannot be included/link during libgfortran build.
libbtool: link: cannot find the library `../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la'
or unhandled argument `../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la
--- meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc | 1 + .../gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc +1 -0
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ SRC_URI = "\ file://0048-gcc-Enable-static-PIE.patch \ file://fix-segmentation-fault-precompiled-hdr.patch \ file://0050-RISC-V-Handle-non-legitimate-address-in-riscv_legiti.patch \ + file://0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch \ ${BACKPORTS} \ " BACKPORTS = "\
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +53 -0
53 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.15.1
Re: [PATCH 8/9] gcc-7.2: Fix libgfortran build
Quoted 95 lines · Khem Raj
From: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <[email protected]>
Without this patch libbacktrace cannot be included/link during libgfortran build.
libbtool: link: cannot find the library `../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la'
or unhandled argument `../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.laSigned-off-by Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Khem Raj <[email protected]>---
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc | 1 + .../gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch | 53
++++++++++++++++++++++2 files changed, 54 insertions(+)create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix- gfortran-build.patch
meta/recipes- renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc +0
-0devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc
index1d40cba731..baf98aeba8100644meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc +0
-0@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ SRC_URI = "\ file://0048-gcc-Enable-static-PIE.patch \ file://fix-segmentation-fault-precompiled-hdr.patch \file://0050-RISC-V-Handle-non-legitimate-address-in- riscv_legiti.patch \
+ file://0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch \
${BACKPORTS} \
"
BACKPORTS = "\(quoted diff) +0
-0build.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran- build.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a71b6b0beemeta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +4
-0@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Without this patch libbacktrace cannot be included/link during +libgfortran build. + +libbtool: link: cannot find the library`../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la'
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +13
-0+or unhandled argument `../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la' + +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [OE specific] +Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <[email protected]> + +diff --git a/libgfortran/Makefile.am b/libgfortran/Makefile.am +index 2857af5943f9..e07760069a3c 100644 +--- a/libgfortran/Makefile.am ++++ b/libgfortran/Makefile.am +@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ toolexeclib_LTLIBRARIES = libgfortran.la + toolexeclib_DATA = libgfortran.spec + libgfortran_la_LINK = $(LINK) $(libgfortran_la_LDFLAGS) + libgfortran_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info `grep -v '^\#'$(srcdir)/libtool-version` \
+- $(LTLDFLAGS) $(LIBQUADLIB) ../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la
\
++ $(LTLDFLAGS) $(LIBQUADLIB)
../../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la \
+ $(HWCAP_LDFLAGS) \
+ -lm $(extra_ldflags_libgfortran) \
+ $(version_arg) -Wc,-shared-libgcc
+@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@AM_CPPFLAGS= -iquote$(srcdir)/iometa/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +16
-1-I$(srcdir)/$(MULTISRCTOP)../gcc \ + -I$(MULTIBUILDTOP)../libgcc \ + -I$(srcdir)/$(MULTISRCTOP)../libbacktrace \ + -I$(MULTIBUILDTOP)../libbacktrace \ +- -I../libbacktrace ++ -I../../libbacktrace + + # Fortran rules for complex multiplication and division + AM_CFLAGS += -fcx-fortran-rules +diff --git a/libgfortran/Makefile.in b/libgfortran/Makefile.in +index 05b183dcadb0..c9e0280e412c 100644 +--- a/libgfortran/Makefile.in ++++ b/libgfortran/Makefile.in +@@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ toolexeclib_LTLIBRARIES = libgfortran.la + toolexeclib_DATA = libgfortran.spec + libgfortran_la_LINK = $(LINK) $(libgfortran_la_LDFLAGS) + libgfortran_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info `grep -v '^\#'$(srcdir)/libtool-version` \
+- $(LTLDFLAGS) $(LIBQUADLIB) ../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la
\
++ $(LTLDFLAGS) $(LIBQUADLIB)
../../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la \
+ $(HWCAP_LDFLAGS) \
+ -lm $(extra_ldflags_libgfortran) \
+ $(version_arg) -Wc,-shared-libgcc
+@@ -602,7 +602,7 @@AM_CPPFLAGS= -iquote$(srcdir)/io -I$(srcdir)/$(MULTISRCTOP)../gcc \
Quoted 8 lines
+ -I$(MULTIBUILDTOP)../libgcc \
+ -I$(srcdir)/$(MULTISRCTOP)../libbacktrace \
+ -I$(MULTIBUILDTOP)../libbacktrace \
+- -I../libbacktrace
++ -I../../libbacktrace
+
+gfor_io_src=io/size_from_kind.c$(am__append_2)
+gfor_io_headers= \
Did you try this for something other than x86_64? I think this won't work when cross compiling and host != target.
I do have a better fix which might work in mind...
Cheers,
Richard
Re: [PATCH 8/9] gcc-7.2: Fix libgfortran build
Hi Richard
My target is a X86_64 camera, and I have only tried with it.
Quoted 114 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 93 lines · Khem Raj
From: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <[email protected]>
Without this patch libbacktrace cannot be included/link during libgfortran build.
libbtool: link: cannot find the library `../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la'
or unhandled argument `../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.laSigned-off-by Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Khem Raj <[email protected]>--- meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc | 1 + .../gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch
meta/recipes- renamed from meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc +0
-0devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc
index1d40cba731..baf98aeba8100644meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2.inc +1
-0@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ SRC_URI = "\ file://0048-gcc-Enable-static-PIE.patch \ file://fix-segmentation-fault-precompiled-hdr.patch \ file://0050-RISC-V-Handle-non-legitimate-address-in- riscv_legiti.patch \ + file://0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch \ ${BACKPORTS} \ "BACKPORTS = "\
(quoted diff) +0
-0build.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran- build.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..a71b6b0beemeta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +4
-0@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +Without this patch libbacktrace cannot be included/link during +libgfortran build. + +libbtool: link: cannot find the library`../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la'
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +13
-0+or unhandled argument `../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la' + +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [OE specific] +Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <[email protected]> + +diff --git a/libgfortran/Makefile.am b/libgfortran/Makefile.am +index 2857af5943f9..e07760069a3c 100644 +--- a/libgfortran/Makefile.am ++++ b/libgfortran/Makefile.am +@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ toolexeclib_LTLIBRARIES = libgfortran.la + toolexeclib_DATA = libgfortran.spec + libgfortran_la_LINK = $(LINK) $(libgfortran_la_LDFLAGS) + libgfortran_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info `grep -v '^\#'$(srcdir)/libtool-version` \
+- $(LTLDFLAGS) $(LIBQUADLIB) ../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la
\
++ $(LTLDFLAGS) $(LIBQUADLIB)
../../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la \meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +20
-1+ $(HWCAP_LDFLAGS) \ + -lm $(extra_ldflags_libgfortran) \ + $(version_arg) -Wc,-shared-libgcc +@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ AM_CPPFLAGS = -iquote$(srcdir)/io -I$(srcdir)/$(MULTISRCTOP)../gcc \ + -I$(MULTIBUILDTOP)../libgcc \ + -I$(srcdir)/$(MULTISRCTOP)../libbacktrace \ + -I$(MULTIBUILDTOP)../libbacktrace \ +- -I../libbacktrace ++ -I../../libbacktrace + + # Fortran rules for complex multiplication and division + AM_CFLAGS += -fcx-fortran-rules +diff --git a/libgfortran/Makefile.in b/libgfortran/Makefile.in +index 05b183dcadb0..c9e0280e412c 100644 +--- a/libgfortran/Makefile.in ++++ b/libgfortran/Makefile.in +@@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ toolexeclib_LTLIBRARIES = libgfortran.la + toolexeclib_DATA = libgfortran.spec + libgfortran_la_LINK = $(LINK) $(libgfortran_la_LDFLAGS) + libgfortran_la_LDFLAGS = -version-info `grep -v '^\#'$(srcdir)/libtool-version` \
+- $(LTLDFLAGS) $(LIBQUADLIB) ../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la
\
++ $(LTLDFLAGS) $(LIBQUADLIB)
../../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la \meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +3
-0+ $(HWCAP_LDFLAGS) \ + -lm $(extra_ldflags_libgfortran) \ + $(version_arg) -Wc,-shared-libgccmeta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch line 53
Quoted 10 lines
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-7.2/0051-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +9
-1+@@ -602,7 +602,7 @@ AM_CPPFLAGS = -iquote$(srcdir)/io -I$(srcdir)/$(MULTISRCTOP)../gcc \ + -I$(MULTIBUILDTOP)../libgcc \ + -I$(srcdir)/$(MULTISRCTOP)../libbacktrace \ + -I$(MULTIBUILDTOP)../libbacktrace \ +- -I../libbacktrace ++ -I../../libbacktrace + + gfor_io_src = io/size_from_kind.c $(am__append_2) + gfor_io_headers = \Did you try this for something other than
x86_64? I think this won't work when cross compiling and host != target.I do have a better fix which might work in mind...
Cheers,
Richard
Signature · 1 line
Ricardo Ribalda
PATCH 9/9 gcc-6.4: Fix libgfortran build
In reply to Khem RajFrom: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <[email protected]>
Without this patch libbacktrace cannot be included/link during libgfortran build.
libbtool: link: cannot find the library ../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la' or unhandled argument ../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la'
--- meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-6.4.inc | 1 + .../gcc/gcc-6.4/0057-Fix-gfortran-build.patch | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-6.4/0057-Fix-gfortran-build.patch
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-6.4.inc +1 -0
@@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ SRC_URI = "\ file://0054_all_nopie-all-flags.patch \ file://0055-unwind_h-glibc26.patch \ file://0056-LRA-PR70904-relax-the-restriction-on-subreg-reload-f.patch \ + file://0057-Fix-gfortran-build.patch \ ${BACKPORTS} \ " BACKPORTS = "\
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-6.4/0057-Fix-gfortran-build.patch new file +53 -0
53 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.15.1