This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: ppc64le: expected localentry:0 `pthread_condattr_destroy'
- From: Josh Stone <jistone at redhat dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:34:18 -0700
- Subject: Re: ppc64le: expected localentry:0 `pthread_condattr_destroy'
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=jistone at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 0C7961203D
- References: <00ac3cbe-47f4-ccf0-3017-c1f2ab43db20@redhat.com> <30946d0a-a095-f5cb-bf0b-d3897712cdab@redhat.com>
On 07/26/2017 12:13 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 07/25/2017 09:11 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I mentioned this regression to fweimer, and he suggested I should bring
>> it up to libc-alpha and binutils. I was just trying to rebuild rustc on
>> Fedora Rawhide, and ppc64le alone failed with this localentry error.
>> Florian suspected that a binutils update in particular now enabled use
>> of PPC64_OPT_LOCALENTRY.
>>
>> I reproduced the regression from old to new binutils, and uploaded those
>> artifacts here if anyone else wants to inspect them:
>>
>> https://jistone.fedorapeople.org/rust-1.19.0-stage1-ppc64le-binutils-2.28.tar.xz
>> https://jistone.fedorapeople.org/rust-1.19.0-stage1-ppc64le-binutils-2.29.tar.xz
>>
>> rust-1.19.0-stage1-ppc64le-binutils-2.28:
>> # LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./lib ./bin/rustc -V
>> rustc 1.19.0
>>
>> rust-1.19.0-stage1-ppc64le-binutils-2.29:
>> # LD_LIBRARY_PATH=./lib ./bin/rustc -V
>> ./bin/rustc: error while loading shared libraries:
>> ./lib/libstd-c3a1748e15265da7.so: expected localentry:0
>> `pthread_condattr_destroy'
>
> Right, this looks like a ppc64le-specific (ELFv2) regression in the unreleased
> binutils 2.29. I've not seen this with the release 2.28.
It does appear to be released -- binutils-2_29 was tagged on Monday.
But anyway, are you seeing this in other contexts yourself?