From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (yocto-www.yoctoproject.org [140.211.169.56]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.8156.1593553679771464718 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:47:59 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="body hash did not verify" header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=FZkSi2by; spf=softfail (domain: gmail.com, ip: 140.211.169.56, mailfrom: raj.khem@gmail.com) Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 0A4FFE01DC9; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (raj.khem[at]gmail.com) * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.215.177 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid Received: from mail-pg1-f177.google.com (mail-pg1-f177.google.com [209.85.215.177]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3BE1E01DC7 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-f177.google.com with SMTP id g67so9683831pgc.8 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:47:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZvklxMYM8x6H2vH+v7O19W2jPWAH7vn4C2kmxqy1hcE=; b=FZkSi2byTHxxGE7VNMEUMWP1vo5Hb+VBEpMBt/rc8FRRcNFYmrCmC+yLG1Xs4SST2s 25d1RqcdiCgz7Nw9Hg9giR1Hhk7VZmINh6KH0yrL14DaOhnSTj9Er/ozUkhb3liDuK4L i9RkSpwzsiy6jZQPduuEpNXVrfANk7DrUCgYUQ+zUiPSmc9NHdKIwP2aBqznfxD+8UX+ I/qHSP4VMy+mrpEPgNrofKbAO2T7XUprOGJE1BHk47bUyL+8twINWF5gwYEGQhOkOvlW g97wMbwftTYQTTkyiRNPlMbGSOEgQEGot0KQkoxJJkoNF045OjXysxMmXM27czVdWbSr Pbwg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZvklxMYM8x6H2vH+v7O19W2jPWAH7vn4C2kmxqy1hcE=; b=bfDlud/EVc+ssmHT7bPCi5TagOKMZ3xQ2UZlAfU/GqdVD3u0E2o9PCv3GGtidgqmW1 BOKiiinnZp/8gSq+jl4ACEESvn2GIQRKXZJm2NiI7jm87YMuDIUz0BQin5H3g2by/8Iu MIRLSZTZJqM2zX9LOjW3C50Nxh0dG5Wm8IZPz79bFWehSzd+9BiapYPTT1X5semu7ZH9 2O+WErtCWSzmYR/K+uGKNWqITeEPu3xYluly056F3gVpz7+43YJu/zYzR//1Ua+20IT4 s/OhjNN3G9DwVbMz7VhIEtDNbMPLA1fz0XfG6dhcZzjsC3rSvv2cYVJclNJkysQ8L/G7 yHEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531beMe+l9uXFWMr633CvYMMtIbIYHyO/izvhSENA2s+gFIyRoXT tU99qUr2LqDFMs5ZMfFrbPt+E+ZRvS4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGPqxUDAnoktY6LgU5dYdoXUfgtIjA1FXjd23cMInrIsoJORVY95qML2BcNgUhvpYWKS+5fQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:e60b:: with SMTP id g11mr17284513pgh.188.1593553676709; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:9200:4e0:2c51:53a1:364:7e03? ([2601:646:9200:4e0:2c51:53a1:364:7e03]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b82sm2226815pfb.215.2020.06.30.14.47.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [yocto] Errors Building openjdk-8 on dunfell To: Robert Joslyn , Yocto discussion list References: <0e53cff2f343fe6bd08ec502376ad1910b1d8039.camel@redrectangle.org> From: "Khem Raj" Message-ID: <0bcecd8a-589a-41b8-bdcb-3fa62b57d874@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:47:55 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0e53cff2f343fe6bd08ec502376ad1910b1d8039.camel@redrectangle.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6/29/20 10:13 PM, Robert Joslyn wrote: > I'm trying to build openjdk-8 on dunfull and am getting some build error= s. > Using an Ubuntu 18.04 host, I get an error building the openjdk-8 recipe= : >=20 > | g++: error: unrecognized command line option =E2=80=98-fmacro-prefix- > map=3D/mnt/yocto/bionic/poky/build/tmp/work/core2-64-poky-linux/openjdk- > 8/252-r0=3D/usr/src/debug/openjdk-8/252-r0=E2=80=99 >=20 > This seems to imply I need a newer gcc which supports the -fmacro-prefix= - > map option. The README says I need gcc 6 or later on the host, but 18.04 > has gcc 7.5.0. Maybe the README is outdated? >=20 > I then tried building in an Ubuntu 20.04 container to see if that makes > any difference. It fails in a different way while building icedtea7- > native: >=20 > | /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/stdio2.h:100:24: error: =E2=80=98%s= = =E2=80=99 > directive argument is null [-Werror=3Dformat-overflow=3D] I guess compiler on your host is too new for openjdk-8, perhaps you=20 might get through by disabling Werror option to host cflags. You might=20 have to dig the appropriate place to stick the option in. >=20 > I'm doing clean builds with both my 18.04 and 20.04 setups starting with > separate, empty sstate-cache directories. Both builds are using poky > defaults: >=20 > Build Configuration: > BB_VERSION =3D "1.46.0" > BUILD_SYS =3D "x86_64-linux" > NATIVELSBSTRING =3D "universal" > TARGET_SYS =3D "x86_64-poky-linux" > MACHINE =3D "qemux86-64" > DISTRO =3D "poky" > DISTRO_VERSION =3D "3.1.1" > TUNE_FEATURES =3D "m64 core2" > TARGET_FPU =3D "" > meta > meta-poky > meta-yocto-bsp =3D "dunfell:93ef4736915090ac9a2402916df8924ac44394= 90" > meta-oe =3D "dunfell:8a72d29e0876830ffd96b85d7d0308302eb07a= 5d" > meta-java =3D "dunfell:cf9604a4789801d9dfb0cb8ca134ff04b42ae1= 61" >=20 > Is there some trick I'm missing to get clean builds out of the box? I ca= n > fix the 20.04 build by adding -Wno-error for that specific warning (and > can send a patch if desired), but has anyone else had these issues? Any > thoughts would be appreciated. >=20 > Thanks, > Robert >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20