glibc: Update to latest on 2.26 pre-release

Submitted by Khem Raj on Aug. 1, 2017, 4:34 p.m. | Patch ID: 142574

Details

Message ID 20170801163443.10899-1-raj.khem@gmail.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Khem Raj Aug. 1, 2017, 4:34 p.m.
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
---
 .../glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb        |  2 +-
 ...ress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb           |  3 +-
 3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
index 5dd0c70400..6d84e52380 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@  SRCBRANCH ?= "master"
 GLIBC_GIT_URI ?= "git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git"
 UPSTREAM_CHECK_GITTAGREGEX = "(?P<pver>\d+\.\d+(\.\d+)*)"
 
-SRCREV_glibc ?= "43a9f537fc121a867981ca31ea9d79f33ce0fd24"
+SRCREV_glibc ?= "930324b356778b985d26f30fd0386163852a35fe"
 SRCREV_localedef ?= "dfb4afe551c6c6e94f9cc85417bd1f582168c843"
 
 SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc \
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..b2bb96b818
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ 
+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 <fweimer@redhat.com> 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  <fweimer@redhat.com>
+
+	[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 <raj.khem@gmail.com>
+
+ 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
+
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
index caf1ff4138..6f373520bb 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSES;md5=e9a558e243b36d3209f380deb394b213 \
 
 DEPENDS += "gperf-native"
 
-SRCREV ?= "43a9f537fc121a867981ca31ea9d79f33ce0fd24"
+SRCREV ?= "930324b356778b985d26f30fd0386163852a35fe"
 
 #SRCBRANCH ?= "release/${PV}/master"
 SRCBRANCH ?= "master"
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@  SRC_URI = "${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 \
 "
 
 NATIVESDKFIXES ?= ""

Comments

Ross Burton Aug. 2, 2017, 3:13 p.m.
Various errors in glibc-locale:

| LC_ADDRESS: language abbreviation `agr' not defined
| LC_ADDRESS: terminology language code `azb' not defined

| Makefile:175: recipe for target
'/data/poky-tmp/master/build/work/corei7-64-poky-linux/glibc-locale/2.25.90-r0/locale-tree/usr/lib/locale/agr_PE'
failed

| Makefile:628: recipe for target
'/data/poky-tmp/master/build/work/corei7-64-poky-linux/glibc-locale/2.25.90-r0/locale-tree/usr/lib/locale/az_IR'
failed

ERROR: Task
(/home/ross/Yocto/poky/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-locale_2.25.90.bb:do_package)
failed with exit code '1'

Ross


On 1 August 2017 at 17:34, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> ---
>  .../glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb        |  2 +-
>  ...ress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch | 90
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb           |  3 +-
>  3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/
> 0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
> b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
> index 5dd0c70400..6d84e52380 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ SRCBRANCH ?= "master"
>  GLIBC_GIT_URI ?= "git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git"
>  UPSTREAM_CHECK_GITTAGREGEX = "(?P<pver>\d+\.\d+(\.\d+)*)"
>
> -SRCREV_glibc ?= "43a9f537fc121a867981ca31ea9d79f33ce0fd24"
> +SRCREV_glibc ?= "930324b356778b985d26f30fd0386163852a35fe"
>  SRCREV_localedef ?= "dfb4afe551c6c6e94f9cc85417bd1f582168c843"
>
>  SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc \
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-
> pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/
> glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..b2bb96b818
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-
> pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
> +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 <fweimer@redhat.com>
> 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  <fweimer@redhat.com>
> +
> +       [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 <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> +
> + 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
> +
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
> b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
> index caf1ff4138..6f373520bb 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSES;md5=
> e9a558e243b36d3209f380deb394b213 \
>
>  DEPENDS += "gperf-native"
>
> -SRCREV ?= "43a9f537fc121a867981ca31ea9d79f33ce0fd24"
> +SRCREV ?= "930324b356778b985d26f30fd0386163852a35fe"
>
>  #SRCBRANCH ?= "release/${PV}/master"
>  SRCBRANCH ?= "master"
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ SRC_URI = "${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
> \
>  "
>
>  NATIVESDKFIXES ?= ""
> --
> 2.13.3
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
Khem Raj Aug. 2, 2017, 8:34 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:13 AM Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:

> Various errors in glibc-locale:
>
> | LC_ADDRESS: language abbreviation `agr' not defined
> | LC_ADDRESS: terminology language code `azb' not defined
>
> | Makefile:175: recipe for target
> '/data/poky-tmp/master/build/work/corei7-64-poky-linux/glibc-locale/2.25.90-r0/locale-tree/usr/lib/locale/agr_PE'
> failed
>
> | Makefile:628: recipe for target
> '/data/poky-tmp/master/build/work/corei7-64-poky-linux/glibc-locale/2.25.90-r0/locale-tree/usr/lib/locale/az_IR'
> failed
>
> ERROR: Task
> (/home/ross/Yocto/poky/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc-locale_2.25.90.bb:do_package)
> failed with exit code '1'
>

How to reproduce it

>
> Ross
>
>
> On 1 August 2017 at 17:34, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  .../glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb        |  2 +-
>>  ...ress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch | 90
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb           |  3 +-
>>  3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644
>> meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
>> b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
>> index 5dd0c70400..6d84e52380 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/cross-localedef-native_2.25.90.bb
>> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ SRCBRANCH ?= "master"
>>  GLIBC_GIT_URI ?= "git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git"
>>  UPSTREAM_CHECK_GITTAGREGEX = "(?P<pver>\d+\.\d+(\.\d+)*)"
>>
>> -SRCREV_glibc ?= "43a9f537fc121a867981ca31ea9d79f33ce0fd24"
>> +SRCREV_glibc ?= "930324b356778b985d26f30fd0386163852a35fe"
>>  SRCREV_localedef ?= "dfb4afe551c6c6e94f9cc85417bd1f582168c843"
>>
>>  SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc \
>> diff --git
>> a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
>> b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..b2bb96b818
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++
>> b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch
>> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
>> +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 <fweimer@redhat.com>
>> 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  <fweimer@redhat.com>
>> +
>> +       [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 <raj.khem@gmail.com>
>> +
>> + 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
>> +
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
>> b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
>> index caf1ff4138..6f373520bb 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.25.90.bb
>> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
>> "file://LICENSES;md5=e9a558e243b36d3209f380deb394b213 \
>>
>>  DEPENDS += "gperf-native"
>>
>> -SRCREV ?= "43a9f537fc121a867981ca31ea9d79f33ce0fd24"
>> +SRCREV ?= "930324b356778b985d26f30fd0386163852a35fe"
>>
>>  #SRCBRANCH ?= "release/${PV}/master"
>>  SRCBRANCH ?= "master"
>> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ SRC_URI =
>> "${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 \
>>  "
>>
>>  NATIVESDKFIXES ?= ""
>>
> --
>> 2.13.3
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>
>
Ross Burton Aug. 2, 2017, 10:03 p.m.
On 2 August 2017 at 21:34, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

> How to reproduce it
>

Build almost anything because it will need glibc-locale.  Sorry.

I can throw it on the AB to see what fails/works.

Ross
Ross Burton Aug. 3, 2017, 11:04 a.m.
On 2 August 2017 at 23:03, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:

> Build almost anything because it will need glibc-locale.  Sorry.
>
> I can throw it on the AB to see what fails/works.
>

The autobuilder, for once, is on my side.

https://autobuilder.yocto.io/tgrid, the ross/glibc row at 4cb48130d80a.

Ross
Khem Raj Aug. 3, 2017, 2:14 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> On 2 August 2017 at 23:03, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Build almost anything because it will need glibc-locale.  Sorry.
>>
>> I can throw it on the AB to see what fails/works.
>
>
> The autobuilder, for once, is on my side.
>
> https://autobuilder.yocto.io/tgrid, the ross/glibc row at 4cb48130d80a.
>

I have sent an update to move to final 2.26 release. Please try that one

> Ross