This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: make check build failure (tst-printf-bz18872)
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: <sellcey at imgtec dot com>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: make check build failure (tst-printf-bz18872)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1444338226 dot 8687 dot 307 dot camel at ubuntu-sellcey> <20151008210634 dot 4BA352C3ABF at topped-with-meat dot com> <1444339336 dot 8687 dot 311 dot camel at ubuntu-sellcey> <20151008213221 dot CFDB32C3AA0 at topped-with-meat dot com> <1444340553 dot 8687 dot 319 dot camel at ubuntu-sellcey>
> It seems like that is still a bug in the Makefile though, should I
> submit a patch?
I just committed this myself:
2015-10-08 Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>
[BZ #18872]
* stdio-common/Makefile ($(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out):
Move out from under [$(run-built-tests) = yes] conditional.
($(objpfx)tst-printf.out, $(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.c): Likewise.
($(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872-mem.out): Likewise.
diff --git a/stdio-common/Makefile b/stdio-common/Makefile
index 40f5cdf..df4122d 100644
--- a/stdio-common/Makefile
+++ b/stdio-common/Makefile
@@ -74,7 +74,6 @@ include ../Rules
tst-printf-bz18872-ENV = MALLOC_TRACE=$(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.mtrace
-ifeq ($(run-built-tests),yes)
$(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out: tst-unbputc.sh $(objpfx)tst-unbputc
$(SHELL) $< $(common-objpfx) '$(test-program-prefix)'; \
$(evaluate-test)
@@ -91,7 +90,6 @@ $(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.c: tst-printf-bz18872.sh
$(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872-mem.out: $(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.out
$(common-objpfx)malloc/mtrace $(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.mtrace > $@; \
$(evaluate-test)
-endif
CFLAGS-vfprintf.c = -Wno-uninitialized
CFLAGS-vfwprintf.c = -Wno-uninitialized
> I found one other issue while doing 'make check'. I am using GCC 4.6.3
> on MIPS and string/tester.c didn't compile due to a
> memset-transposed-args warning. It looks like there is handling for
> this in GCC 5.0 and later but not for 4.6.
Please address that in a separate thread.
Thanks,
Roland