gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no

gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no

[Wolfgang Pfeiffer]

Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-22
Severity: normal


Trying to build a SE-Linux dpkg package with gcc-2.95 and this script:

=========================================== 
#!/bin/sh -x
cd $HOME/russellpackages/dpkg/ && \
rm -rf * && \
curl -f -O http://selinux.lemuria.org/newselinux/dpkg/dpkg_1.10.22.orig.tar.gz && \
curl -f -O http://selinux.lemuria.org/newselinux/dpkg/dpkg_1.10.22-se1.diff.gz && \
tar -xzvf *\.tar.gz && \
cd dpkg-1.10.22/ && \
cp ../dpkg_1.10.22-se1.diff.gz . && \
gzip -cd dpkg_1.10.22-se1.diff.gz | patch -p1 && \
chmod +x debian/rules && \
autoconf && \
fakeroot debian/rules binary
=================================================

ends like this:
---------------------------------------------------- 
checking for initscr in -lncurses... yes
checking if TIOCNOTTY is defined in sys/ioctl.h... yes
checking for va_copy... no
checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no
make: *** [/home/shorty/russellpackages/dpkg/dpkg-1.10.22/build/configure-stamp] Error 1
----------------------------------------------------

Google hints that
"gcc build has failed to install varargs.h"
<http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2003-February/005694.html>

$ locate varargs.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/powerpc-linux/2.95.4/include/varargs.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/powerpc-linux/3.0.4/include/varargs.h
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/powerpc-linux/3.3.4/include/varargs.h
/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-linux/3.4.1/include/varargs.h

Trying to build the package with the mentioned script above plus gcc-3.3
or gcc-3.0 or gcc-3.4 each time successfully builds these packages:

dpkg-dev_1.10.22-se1_all.deb
dpkg-doc_1.10.22-se1_all.deb
dpkg_1.10.22-se1_powerpc.deb
dselect_1.10.22-se1_powerpc.deb

HTH

Regards
Wolfgang


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.25-ben1
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages gcc-2.95 depends on:
ii  binutils                   2.14.90.0.7-8 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii  cpp-2.95                   1:2.95.4-22   The GNU C preprocessor
ii  libc6                      2.3.2.ds1-13  GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
-- no debconf information
-- 
Profile, links: http://profiles.yahoo.com/wolfgangpfeiffer


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no

[Russell Coker]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 03:58, Wolfgang Pfeiffer <roto@gmx.net> wrote:
> Trying to build a SE-Linux dpkg package with gcc-2.95 and this script:
>
> ends like this:
> ----------------------------------------------------
> checking for initscr in -lncurses... yes
> checking if TIOCNOTTY is defined in sys/ioctl.h... yes
> checking for va_copy... no
> checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no
> make: ***
> [/home/shorty/russellpackages/dpkg/dpkg-1.10.22/build/configure-stamp]
> Error 1 ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Trying to build the package with the mentioned script above plus gcc-3.3
> or gcc-3.0 or gcc-3.4 each time successfully builds these packages:

Why not just use the latest GCC?

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no

[Wolfgang Pfeiffer]

On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 10:10, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 03:58, Wolfgang Pfeiffer <roto@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Trying to build a SE-Linux dpkg package with gcc-2.95 and this script:
> >
> > ends like this:
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > checking for initscr in -lncurses... yes
> > checking if TIOCNOTTY is defined in sys/ioctl.h... yes
> > checking for va_copy... no
> > checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no
> > make: ***
> > [/home/shorty/russellpackages/dpkg/dpkg-1.10.22/build/configure-stamp]
> > Error 1 ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Trying to build the package with the mentioned script above plus gcc-3.3
> > or gcc-3.0 or gcc-3.4 each time successfully builds these packages:
> 
> Why not just use the latest GCC?

Because I thought it's a good idea to compile the SE-packages with the
same gcc version as the one I will use to compile the kernel.

And as, IINM, at least for Intel machines (I'm running ppc) gcc 2.95.3
still seems to be the recommended version to compile 2.6 kernels I'm
using 2.95 for compiling other packages, too ..

But I'm definitely not sure on all that. As to the sane ways to compile
a kernel I have to rely on the docs I find on WWW, and those that come
with the software packages:

For instance
<http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/post-halloween-2.5.txt>
explaining "some of the new functionality to be found in the 2.6 Linux
kernel" [Excerpt]:

----------------------------------------------------
Compiler issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- The recommended compiler (for x86) is still 2.95.3.
- When compiled with a modern gcc (Ie gcc 3.x), 2.6 will use additional
  optimisations that 2.4 didn't. This may shake out compiler bugs that
  2.4 didn't expose.
- Do not use gcc 3.0.x on x86 due to a stack pointer handling bug.
- gcc 2.96 is not supported with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y due to a stack
  pointer handling bug.
----------------------------------------------------

I'll be happily using gcc-3.4 (this is the latest reliable gcc version:
Is this correct?) for packages and kernels  if someone tells me that
nowadays this is as safe as 2.95.

Thanks in anticipation if someone can shed some light on all that ...

Best Regards
Wolfgang
-- 
Profile, links: http://profiles.yahoo.com/wolfgangpfeiffer


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no

[Russell Coker]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:04, Wolfgang Pfeiffer <roto@gmx.net> wrote:
> > Why not just use the latest GCC?
>
> Because I thought it's a good idea to compile the SE-packages with the
> same gcc version as the one I will use to compile the kernel.

That's not necessary.  Using a different version of GCC for the kernel 
shouldn't be a big deal (think of kgcc).

> And as, IINM, at least for Intel machines (I'm running ppc) gcc 2.95.3
> still seems to be the recommended version to compile 2.6 kernels I'm
> using 2.95 for compiling other packages, too ..

gcc 3.3.4 is working well for me when I compile my i386 kernels.

> Compiler issues.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> - The recommended compiler (for x86) is still 2.95.3.
> - When compiled with a modern gcc (Ie gcc 3.x), 2.6 will use additional
>   optimisations that 2.4 didn't. This may shake out compiler bugs that
>   2.4 didn't expose.
> - Do not use gcc 3.0.x on x86 due to a stack pointer handling bug.
> - gcc 2.96 is not supported with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y due to a stack
>   pointer handling bug.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll be happily using gcc-3.4 (this is the latest reliable gcc version:
> Is this correct?) for packages and kernels  if someone tells me that
> nowadays this is as safe as 2.95.

3.3.4 works well for me.  I haven't tried 3.4 yet, but I will probably do so 
soon.

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error: no

[Wolfgang Pfeiffer]

On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 12:13, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 20:04, Wolfgang Pfeiffer <roto@gmx.net> wrote:
> > > Why not just use the latest GCC?
> >
> > Because I thought it's a good idea to compile the SE-packages with the
> > same gcc version as the one I will use to compile the kernel.
> 
> That's not necessary.  

Good to know ... :)

> Using a different version of GCC for the kernel 
> shouldn't be a big deal (think of kgcc).
> 
> > And as, IINM, at least for Intel machines (I'm running ppc) gcc 2.95.3
> > still seems to be the recommended version to compile 2.6 kernels I'm
> > using 2.95 for compiling other packages, too ..
> 
> gcc 3.3.4 is working well for me when I compile my i386 kernels.

Good news for me. Thanks for letting me know

> 
> > Compiler issues.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > - The recommended compiler (for x86) is still 2.95.3.
> > - When compiled with a modern gcc (Ie gcc 3.x), 2.6 will use additional
> >   optimisations that 2.4 didn't. This may shake out compiler bugs that
> >   2.4 didn't expose.
> > - Do not use gcc 3.0.x on x86 due to a stack pointer handling bug.
> > - gcc 2.96 is not supported with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y due to a stack
> >   pointer handling bug.
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I'll be happily using gcc-3.4 (this is the latest reliable gcc version:
> > Is this correct?) for packages and kernels  if someone tells me that
> > nowadays this is as safe as 2.95.
> 
> 3.3.4 works well for me.  I haven't tried 3.4 yet, but I will probably do so 
> soon.

I'll probably try 3.4, but at least 3.3, for the packages and the 2.6
kernel ... but not being quite sure on gcc-3.4 yet.

So the next steps will be building the packages, and then let's hope I
could manage to find a place to offer them ... :)

Thanks again

Regards
Wolfgang
-- 
Profile, links: http://profiles.yahoo.com/wolfgangpfeiffer


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.