I've had doubts on this "ulimit -s 32768" command for years. After
reading GCC code (libiberty/stack-limit.c) I'm pretty sure this command
is not doing what we expected.
In a typical Linux distro, the default "soft" stack limit is 8 MiB and
the default "hard" stack limit is infinite. And GCC will automatically
increase the soft limit to 64 MiB if the original soft limit is smaller
than 64 MiB, and the hard limit is at least 64 MiB. So with a typical
default configuration, the real stack limit of GCC is 64 MiB.
But our "ulimit -s 32768" command sets both the soft limit and the hard
limit to 32 MiB. Thus we are actually *decreasing* the real stack
limit. Fortunately this has not caused any test failures, but it's just
wrong (contradicting with the explanation of the command).
Thus just raise the hard limit to infinite in case the host distro uses
a not so typical configuration where the hard limit is tight, and let
GCC to set up the soft limit to the expected value on its own. It's
more future-proof than "ulimit -s 65536" in case GCC changes the
expected stack limit in the future.
It should be safe to make the change in freeze because in jhalfs it only
affects the test suite, and even in a manual build the user can skip
this command if not running the GCC test suite.
If CONFIG_FB is not set but CONFIG_DRM_FBDEV_EMULATION is set to y, on a
DRM-drived graphic card (anything from AMD/ATI, Intel, or NVIDIA in
recent 20 years) we'd be using a fb console but without
/sys/class/graphics/fb0. Then the script won't run setfont for VT 2-6.
Check /sys/class/graphics/fbcon instead of /sys/class/graphics/fb0 to
fix the issue.
Closes: https://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/arc/lfs-support/2024-08/msg00001.html
Reported-by: Alan Ianson <agianson@gmail.com>
It's added after 12.1 release and removed before 12.2 release, so when
we compare 12.1 and 12.2 it's neither added nor removed and it just
seems never existed.
Pass 2 libstdc++ still links to libgcc.a even with LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET=,
despite this libgcc.a is from pass 2 instead of pass 1.
The difference between pass 2 libgcc and pass 1 libgcc is Glibc wasn't
installed when the pass 1 libgcc was built. This difference causes both
consequences (1) pass 1 libgcc lacks shared library and (2) pass 1
libgcc cannot support C++ EH, but it's not (1) causing (2).
Update to bash-5.2.32.
Update to iana-etc-20240801.
Update to vim-9.1.0660.
Update to binutils-2.43.
Update to linux-6.10.3.
Update to readline-8.2.13.
Update to wheel-0.44.0.
Update to iana-etc-20240723.
Update to glibc-2.40.
Update to iproute2-6.10.0.
Update to linux-6.10.2.
Update to lz4-1.10.0.
Update to meson-1.5.1.
Update to setuptools-71.1.0.
Update to sysklogd-2.6.1.
Update to systemd-256.4.
Update to sysvinit-3.10.
This option makes ld use DT_RUNPATH instead of DT_RPATH. DT_RPATH is
generally considered bad because it takes precedence over
LD_LIBRARY_PATH. For example, eog is linked with -rpath /usr/lib/eog,
and with DT_RPATH if an old eog is already installed we are basically
impossible to debug a new eog build w/o overwriting the system
installation first or explicitly using "ld.so --inhibit-rpath" to
invoke it.
This "new" actually means "new in 2000," it's 24 years ago and all other
distros has enabled it. Thus I guess some unexplainable "test suite
uses installed library instead of the just built one" issues in BLFS are
actually caused by this difference: the package author just assumes
everyone is using DT_RUNPATH thus they just set LD_LIBRARY_PATH and
consider it enough to test with the just built libraries, but DT_RPATH
breaks this expectation.
Let's eliminate the difference as it seems not doing anything good and
doing so just takes one switch.
