The recent update of binutils/binutils-devel on aarch64 totally breaks gcc. When running gcc over a simple program with main - executing it results in a SIGSEGV, as the _start prologue calls a NULL pointer.
I haven't figured out yet how to build a new build using git.centos.org, but I noticed that there is a -99 variant out there... -90 worked fine.
What's the quickest way to get this back to being operational? The instructions to build a new package look to be a bit scattered - and how can I build a working one if any update picks up a borked one...
Maurice
On 4/5/21 6:47 PM, Maurice Smulders wrote:
The recent update of binutils/binutils-devel on aarch64 totally breaks gcc. When running gcc over a simple program with main - executing it results in a SIGSEGV, as the _start prologue calls a NULL pointer.
I haven't figured out yet how to build a new build using git.centos.org, but I noticed that there is a -99 variant out there... -90 worked fine.
What's the quickest way to get this back to being operational? The instructions to build a new package look to be a bit scattered - and how can I build a working one if any update picks up a borked one...
Maurice
We released the -99 build yesterday and we THINK it fixes this issue.
Johnny,
I can confirm that it fixes the issue, test code runs Ok!
Maurice
Maurice Smulders | Operating System Software Engineer -------------------------------------------------------------- https://windtalker.com | C: xxx.xxx.xxxx
On 4/7/21, 8:29 AM, "CentOS on behalf of Johnny Hughes" <centos-bounces@centos.org on behalf of johnny@centos.org> wrote:
On 4/5/21 6:47 PM, Maurice Smulders wrote: > The recent update of binutils/binutils-devel on aarch64 totally breaks gcc. When running gcc over a simple program with main - executing it results in a SIGSEGV, as the _start prologue calls a NULL pointer. > > I haven't figured out yet how to build a new build using git.centos.org, but I noticed that there is a -99 variant out there... > -90 worked fine. > > What's the quickest way to get this back to being operational? > The instructions to build a new package look to be a bit scattered - and how can I build a working one if any update picks up a borked one... > > Maurice >
We released the -99 build yesterday and we THINK it fixes this issue.
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Johnny Hughes -
Maurice Smulders