| Message ID | 20170801163443.10899-1-raj.khem@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
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 > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
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 >> > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
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 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
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 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
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 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
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 ?= ""
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 -- 2.13.3 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core