glibc: Update to latest on 2.26 pre-release

Message ID 20170801163443.10899-1-raj.khem@gmail.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Khem Raj Aug. 1, 2017, 4:34 p.m.
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

Comments

Burton, Ross Aug. 2, 2017, 3:13 p.m. | #1
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
Khem Raj Aug. 2, 2017, 8:34 p.m. | #2
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
Burton, Ross Aug. 2, 2017, 10:03 p.m. | #3
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
Burton, Ross Aug. 3, 2017, 11:04 a.m. | #4
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
Khem Raj Aug. 3, 2017, 2:14 p.m. | #5
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

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 ?= ""