From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com (mail-pg0-f68.google.com [74.125.83.68]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DAA3788C2 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:23:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f68.google.com with SMTP id b11so13841776pgu.13 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:23:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references; bh=wGAlJVKDpPYbDwXuPywFoI9eeNBuP1xbjZJ46vrP6uU=; b=f/NWS7zY9BPOJThTKzcGN/c/ZggKLszmE4nCs7/zyG5DgGGPpOO++Dabx4PH2TxO0d jDCbEvdw78pf0hrCQv3a6zfOVW1s2mm/q3tMV37Ke+H3GOqgGoDeNlQ9tjRCiNzXHW7n YkieXdAbmPjDEs+fV0Z+0XO40RuXuBiQThGkpe0bJW/nOzqtt3DHUcSD6npYB01GRVuS +qBC695wp/C30k4d0eszZi31OwnwwueD5JEAtkYShbhDPVzPCLDo4vjSCv9JIDCg5cHF Ugc4QgP7xhtFmH1C5JOhEB60Srj8PzRNpvWPQpwRtrcXNCqDXy+EAGFWx7xAb9J68YVH vM8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references; bh=wGAlJVKDpPYbDwXuPywFoI9eeNBuP1xbjZJ46vrP6uU=; b=WfF+A2PhwFqYunGvQLNC2w7ieuXYQNldYoz6YL0ANW18jgvQf0BmzZutON5YRV4OFj A3Bb7Ky4RISeyMtjUmhtGwt6YubxWNYgZ87Ibf09SrJBIdOpPxDtsCKBxAuBA2GcyUaf rPFWerYm/Mo7jLpcvIqKhxE05Tvgm6pa0TP1fYKjO+ty9IPulumXM3quMttrzAzOmz1N Nm5+kreSK5pDeNOSEoY0P423r6rt2Rfp2Wd652m+e8bMKkWb8Z6+bs7JuzhxkMnTbjl2 bSP4rKycIHfC6wteyJ4CLyhvLkDqdBVmrVaOJqh7v1EBI/A3plkghgn+NXbq2tfHPZke jOcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLooNfp6ymfFsTBt3sR8vln/vAq3/NFqlDbrP5ZK5Kc/uR2TRXR sd3HcgTPsUFZiLIN2fa+1V53Dg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotY2J0sd9eoZQFDyf2doeKUrL53rQdO3IWYCpYS5e7+4HKtwCa7OqGeyHXBdtkBcNHw9SUaTA== X-Received: by 10.99.109.193 with SMTP id i184mr2662163pgc.187.1513099412977; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:23:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2601:646:8880:466c::c579]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k197sm18790329pga.42.2017.12.12.09.23.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:23:32 -0800 (PST) From: Khem Raj To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:23:15 -0800 Message-Id: <20171212172317.601-7-raj.khem@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.15.1 In-Reply-To: <20171212172317.601-1-raj.khem@gmail.com> References: <20171212172317.601-1-raj.khem@gmail.com> Subject: [PATCH 7/9] glibc: Upgrade to latest on 2.26 release X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 17:23:32 -0000 For detailed view of changes see https://github.com/kraj/glibc/compare/glibc-2.26...77f921dac17c5fa99bd9e926d926c327982895f7 drop upstreamed 1 patch Signed-off-by: Khem Raj --- ...ress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch | 90 ---------------------- meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.26.bb | 3 +- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 92 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch 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 deleted file mode 100644 index b2bb96b818..0000000000 --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0026-assert-Suppress-pedantic-warning-caused-by-statement.patch +++ /dev/null @@ -1,90 +0,0 @@ -From 037283cbc74739b72f36dfec827d120faa243406 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 -From: Florian Weimer -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 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 - - [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 - - 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_2.26.bb b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.26.bb index 135ec4fb16..5213a6a942 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.26.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.26.bb @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSES;md5=e9a558e243b36d3209f380deb394b213 \ DEPENDS += "gperf-native" -SRCREV ?= "1c9a5c270d8b66f30dcfaf1cb2d6cf39d3e18369" +SRCREV ?= "77f921dac17c5fa99bd9e926d926c327982895f7" SRCBRANCH ?= "release/${PV}/master" @@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ SRC_URI = "${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 \ file://0027-glibc-reset-dl-load-write-lock-after-forking.patch \ file://0028-Bug-4578-add-ld.so-lock-while-fork.patch \ " -- 2.15.1