GNU bug report logs - #54832
[patch] update glibc to 2.35

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Marius Bakke <marius <at> gnu.org>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#54832: closed ([patch] update glibc to 2.35)
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2022 22:34:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Fri, 02 Sep 2022 00:32:56 +0200
with message-id <87czcebu93.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: [bug#54832] [patch] update glibc to 2.35
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #54832,
regarding [patch] update glibc to 2.35
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
54832: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=54832
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: zamfofex <zamfofex <at> twdb.moe>
To: "guix-patches <at> gnu.org" <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Subject: [patch] update glibc to 2.35
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 22:16:31 -0300 (BRT)

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello! I have decided I wanted to work on updating glibc. I tested the updated glibc with the packages ‘hello’, ‘coreutils’, ‘grep’, ‘sed’ and ‘guile’, and they all built successfully!

I have attached the generated ‘git diff’ to this message, and I hope that is fine. If there are any issues, please feel free to let me know!

[glibc.diff (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Marius Bakke <marius <at> gnu.org>
To: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>, zamfofex <zamfofex <at> twdb.moe>
Cc: 54832-close <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Subject: Re: [bug#54832] [patch] update glibc to 2.35
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 00:32:56 +0200

[Message part 6 (text/plain, inline)]

Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com> skriver:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 12:14 PM zamfofex <zamfofex <at> twdb.moe> wrote:
>>
>> > There’s a comment at the top of ‘glibc-dl-cache.patch’ that explains
>> > what it does, but see
>> > <https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2021/taming-the-stat-storm-with-a-loader-cache/>
>> > for details.  I can take a look and update it.
>>
>> It seems we both misinterpreted the diff I had sent originally, as that patch has not actually been removed, but rather its line was changed (it was moved upwards). So good news, no need for changes or further investigation!
>
> I have used your patch to bootstrap with GCC 12 (in order to use both
> gcc-12 and llvm-14 in the same profile) and I have found that without
> "glibc-ldd-x86_64.patch", sometimes ldd will throw a "not a dynamic
> executable" error. I assume the powerpc patch is likewise still
> required.

I submitted a variant of this patch to #57533 that preserves
glibc-ldd-x86_64.patch.

Closing this issue, as it has been superseded by #57533.

Thanks zamfofex!

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.