https://blogs.gentoo.org/ago/2020/07/04/gentoo-tinderbox/ Issue: app-editors/xemacs-21.5.35 fails to compile. Discovered on: amd64 (internal ref: lto_tinderbox) System: LTO-SYSTEM (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Tinderbox/Common_Issues_Helper#LTO) Info about the issue: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Tinderbox/Common_Issues_Helper#CF0014
Created attachment 884780 [details] build.log build log and emerge --info
Error(s) that match a know pattern in addition to what has been reported in the summary: checking for standard C library version information... ls: cannot access '/lib/libc-*.so': No such file or directory packaging.texi:6: warning: @setfilename after the first element lstream.h:315:4: error: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules [-Werror=strict-aliasing[https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wstrict-aliasing]]
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=a3dc67052d5a266a8ed044a76913bea30efbac63 commit a3dc67052d5a266a8ed044a76913bea30efbac63 Author: Mats Lidell <matsl@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2024-03-12 11:06:23 +0000 Commit: Mats Lidell <matsl@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2024-03-12 11:06:23 +0000 app-editors/xemacs: Set no-strict-aliasing on debug Reintroduce patch to disable broken libc version check. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/924339 Signed-off-by: Mats Lidell <matsl@gentoo.org> .../xemacs-21.5.35-configure-libc-version.patch | 73 ++++++ app-editors/xemacs/xemacs-21.5.35-r1.ebuild | 258 +++++++++++++++++++++ app-editors/xemacs/xemacs-21.5.9999.ebuild | 14 +- 3 files changed, 342 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
XEmacs is not strict aliasing safe. This was not enforced when use flag debug was set so this is fixed now. For none debug builds with-optimization is set and configure does in that case set it itself. Upstream has been informed of this slight discrepancy. For the libc warning that was an oversight by me to not bring that fix over from 21.5.34 ebuild. Thanks for making me notice. It has now been improved(!?) to remove that check completely since the check is broken and the result is just informative. The texi warnings are still there and I have not addressed them. I'm leaving for upstream to deal with them. Upstream has been notified about them and a merge request that fixes them partially have been provided. So there is hope it will be fixed with future versions.
Maybe you should filter-lto as well?
