Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 137440
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@gentoo.org>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
mdadm build failure with gcc-4.1.1 text/plain Andrew Gaffney 2006-06-20 15:35 0000 2.54 KB Details
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 137440 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 137440 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2006-06-20 15:35 0000 
The summary says it all. mdadm-1.12.0 builds fine with gcc-3.4.6 and fails in
gcc-4.1.1 due to warnings being treated as errors in gcc-4.1.1. The latest ~x86
(2.5) builds just fine with both gcc versions. Perhaps we can stable a newer
version in time for the release snapshot?

------- Comment #1 From Andrew Gaffney 2006-06-20 15:35:33 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=89674) [details]
build failure with gcc-4.1.1

------- Comment #2 From Danny van Dyk (RETIRED) 2006-06-22 13:51:00 0000 ------- 
This only happens when you add '-O2' to CXFLAGS, as done by the ebuild.
I suggest to 'filter-flags "-O*"'.

------- Comment #3 From SpanKY 2006-06-23 22:44:47 0000 ------- 
ha you cant be serious

------- Comment #4 From Danny van Dyk (RETIRED) 2006-06-24 06:03:15 0000 ------- 
vapier: this is a potential release blocker for amd64, so I'd be delighted to
have it rather solved before the snapshot date.

------- Comment #5 From SpanKY 2006-06-24 16:55:46 0000 ------- 
what does that have to do with adding a hack like filtering flags ?  fix it
properly or dont fix it at all

------- Comment #6 From Andrew Gaffney 2006-06-24 17:07:50 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #5)
> what does that have to do with adding a hack like filtering flags ?  fix it
> properly or dont fix it at all

I don't think it was clear what your previous comment was regarding. I took it
the same way that Kugelfang did...that the bug itself was bogus.

------- Comment #7 From SpanKY 2006-06-24 17:22:05 0000 ------- 
the bug is not bogus, later versions of mdadm just dont compile with -Werror

see the recent thread on gentoo-dev mailing list about aliasing rules

------- Comment #8 From Andrew Gaffney 2006-06-24 17:29:00 0000 ------- 
No, no, no...I know the bug isn't bogus. I wouldn't have filed it :P I was
saying that Kugelfang (probably) and I took your comment (#3) to mean that you
thought the bug was bogus.

------- Comment #9 From SpanKY 2006-06-24 17:50:16 0000 ------- 
right

my comment #3 was in reference to comment #2 being completely bogus

------- Comment #10 From SpanKY 2006-06-24 17:51:36 0000 ------- 
2.5-r1 now has a patch to fix this properly

------- Comment #11 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-06-26 14:42:14 0000 ------- 
Since the current stable is nowhere near 2.5-r1, can we get this reopened and
assigned to the proper arch teams for stabilization?  Fixing it in the tree
doesn't help Release Engineering if it isn't stable, too.

------- Comment #12 From SpanKY 2006-06-26 19:39:51 0000 ------- 
file a new bug
Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug