RISC-V ABI issue with ULEB128

[Richard W.M. Jones]

I'm not sure exactly the effect on RISC-V binaries, but I wanted to
raise it here to get the attention of the Fedora toolchain team ...

Here's the bug:

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41 objects

It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:

https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...

As far as I understand the issue (which is not too far) this mainly
affects shipped *.o and *.a files (ie. static libraries and similar)
which were compiled with binutils < 2.41, which either won't link
correctly or will give a linker error when using GNU ld from binutils 2.41.

Unclear if it also affects *.so files (which would be a much more
serious ABI break), and also if it affects most binaries or just a
few.  I initially thought this only affected programs using 128 bit
ints, so didn't think it was too important, but after reading the
commit I'm not sure that is really true.

There's been discussion about adding an ELF tag, but that seems very
problematic to me:
https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/pull/414

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines.  Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests.
http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  I'm not sure exactly the effect on RISC-V binaries, but I wanted to
>  raise it here to get the attention of the Fedora toolchain team ...
>
>  Here's the bug:
>
>  https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
>  RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41 objects
>
>  It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:
>
>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>
>  As far as I understand the issue (which is not too far) this mainly
>  affects shipped *.o and *.a files (ie. static libraries and similar)
>  which were compiled with binutils < 2.41, which either won't link
>  correctly or will give a linker error when using GNU ld from binutils 2.41. 
Correction. This is broken in <= 2.41 (incl. the current stable
binutils release).

>  Unclear if it also affects *.so files (which would be a much more
>  serious ABI break), and also if it affects most binaries or just a
>  few.  I initially thought this only affected programs using 128 bit
>  ints, so didn't think it was too important, but after reading the
>  commit I'm not sure that is really true. 
Nelson Chu committed (5 days ago) a change:

https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...

This will accept whatever is produced by <= 2.41 and the final binary
will be correct. There is also a new ld flag (--check-uleb128) which
can produce a warning if it detects an issue.

I plan/hope to use binutils 2.42 in Fedora/RISCV 40. That would happen
before I start mass rebuilding, and that should fix this.

>  There's been discussion about adding an ELF tag, but that seems very
>  problematic to me:
>  https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/pull/414 
Yeah. I doubt we need a tag. I don't think it solves anything. Nelson
commit (i.e. workaround) + mass rebuild should resolve any
inconveniences AFAIK.

Cheers,
david

>
> Rich.
>
> --
> Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
> Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
> virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines.  Boot with a
> live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests.
> http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Florian Weimer]

* David Abdurachmanov:

>  On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Richard W.M. Jones
> <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly the effect on RISC-V binaries, but I wanted to
> > raise it here to get the attention of the Fedora toolchain team ...
> >
> > Here's the bug:
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
> > RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41 objects
> >
> > It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:
> >
> >
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
> >
> > As far as I understand the issue (which is not too far) this mainly
> > affects shipped *.o and *.a files (ie. static libraries and similar)
> > which were compiled with binutils < 2.41, which either won't link
> > correctly or will give a linker error when using GNU ld from binutils 2.41.
>
>  Correction. This is broken in <= 2.41 (incl. the current stable
>  binutils release).
>
> >
> > Unclear if it also affects *.so files (which would be a much more
> > serious ABI break), and also if it affects most binaries or just a
> > few.  I initially thought this only affected programs using 128 bit
> > ints, so didn't think it was too important, but after reading the
> > commit I'm not sure that is really true.
>
>  Nelson Chu committed (5 days ago) a change:
>
>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>
>  This will accept whatever is produced by <= 2.41 and the final binary
>  will be correct. There is also a new ld flag (--check-uleb128) which
>  can produce a warning if it detects an issue.
>
>  I plan/hope to use binutils 2.42 in Fedora/RISCV 40. That would happen
>  before I start mass rebuilding, and that should fix this. 
Cc:ing Nick and Siddhesh for awareness.

The current plan is to use binutils 2.41 for the mass rebuild.

Thanks,
Florian

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:54 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  * David Abdurachmanov:
>
>  > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> I'm not sure exactly the effect on RISC-V binaries, but I wanted to
>  >> raise it here to get the attention of the Fedora toolchain team ...
>  >>
>  >> Here's the bug:
>  >>
>  >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
>  >> RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41 objects
>  >>
>  >> It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:
>  >>
>  >>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  >>
>  >> As far as I understand the issue (which is not too far) this mainly
>  >> affects shipped *.o and *.a files (ie. static libraries and similar)
>  >> which were compiled with binutils < 2.41, which either won't link
>  >> correctly or will give a linker error when using GNU ld from binutils 2.41.
>  >
>  > Correction. This is broken in <= 2.41 (incl. the current stable
>  > binutils release).
>  >
>  >>
>  >> Unclear if it also affects *.so files (which would be a much more
>  >> serious ABI break), and also if it affects most binaries or just a
>  >> few.  I initially thought this only affected programs using 128 bit
>  >> ints, so didn't think it was too important, but after reading the
>  >> commit I'm not sure that is really true.
>  >
>  > Nelson Chu committed (5 days ago) a change:
>  >
>  >
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  >
>  > This will accept whatever is produced by <= 2.41 and the final binary
>  > will be correct. There is also a new ld flag (--check-uleb128) which
>  > can produce a warning if it detects an issue.
>  >
>  > I plan/hope to use binutils 2.42 in Fedora/RISCV 40. That would happen
>  > before I start mass rebuilding, and that should fix this.
>
>  Cc:ing Nick and Siddhesh for awareness.
>
>  The current plan is to use binutils 2.41 for the mass rebuild. 
In Fedora/RISCV we typically end up using the latest available
binutils. We are slightly different from upstream/normal Fedora.

Cheers,
david

>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>

[Peter Robinson]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:05 PM David Abdurachmanov
<david.abdurachmanov(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:54 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  > * David Abdurachmanov:
>  >
>  > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt;
> wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >>
>  > >> I'm not sure exactly the effect on RISC-V binaries, but I wanted to
>  > >> raise it here to get the attention of the Fedora toolchain team ...
>  > >>
>  > >> Here's the bug:
>  > >>
>  > >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
>  > >> RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41 objects
>  > >>
>  > >> It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:
>  > >>
>  > >>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  > >>
>  > >> As far as I understand the issue (which is not too far) this mainly
>  > >> affects shipped *.o and *.a files (ie. static libraries and similar)
>  > >> which were compiled with binutils < 2.41, which either won't link
>  > >> correctly or will give a linker error when using GNU ld from binutils
> 2.41.
>  > >
>  > > Correction. This is broken in <= 2.41 (incl. the current stable
>  > > binutils release).
>  > >
>  > >>
>  > >> Unclear if it also affects *.so files (which would be a much more
>  > >> serious ABI break), and also if it affects most binaries or just a
>  > >> few.  I initially thought this only affected programs using 128 bit
>  > >> ints, so didn't think it was too important, but after reading the
>  > >> commit I'm not sure that is really true.
>  > >
>  > > Nelson Chu committed (5 days ago) a change:
>  > >
>  > >
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  > >
>  > > This will accept whatever is produced by <= 2.41 and the final binary
>  > > will be correct. There is also a new ld flag (--check-uleb128) which
>  > > can produce a warning if it detects an issue.
>  > >
>  > > I plan/hope to use binutils 2.42 in Fedora/RISCV 40. That would happen
>  > > before I start mass rebuilding, and that should fix this.
>  >
>  > Cc:ing Nick and Siddhesh for awareness.
>  >
>  > The current plan is to use binutils 2.41 for the mass rebuild.
>
>  In Fedora/RISCV we typically end up using the latest available
>  binutils. We are slightly different from upstream/normal Fedora. 
Which is fine when you're an out of mainline architecture but these
sorts of things need to be resolved well and truly before any
incorporation can happen.

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 6:26 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:05 PM David Abdurachmanov
>  <david.abdurachmanov(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:54 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > >
>  > > * David Abdurachmanov:
>  > >
>  > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Richard W.M. Jones
> <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > > >>
>  > > >>
>  > > >> I'm not sure exactly the effect on RISC-V binaries, but I wanted
> to
>  > > >> raise it here to get the attention of the Fedora toolchain team ...
>  > > >>
>  > > >> Here's the bug:
>  > > >>
>  > > >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
>  > > >> RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41
> objects
>  > > >>
>  > > >> It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:
>  > > >>
>  > > >>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  > > >>
>  > > >> As far as I understand the issue (which is not too far) this mainly
>  > > >> affects shipped *.o and *.a files (ie. static libraries and similar)
>  > > >> which were compiled with binutils < 2.41, which either won't
> link
>  > > >> correctly or will give a linker error when using GNU ld from binutils
> 2.41.
>  > > >
>  > > > Correction. This is broken in <= 2.41 (incl. the current stable
>  > > > binutils release).
>  > > >
>  > > >>
>  > > >> Unclear if it also affects *.so files (which would be a much more
>  > > >> serious ABI break), and also if it affects most binaries or just a
>  > > >> few.  I initially thought this only affected programs using 128 bit
>  > > >> ints, so didn't think it was too important, but after reading the
>  > > >> commit I'm not sure that is really true.
>  > > >
>  > > > Nelson Chu committed (5 days ago) a change:
>  > > >
>  > > >
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  > > >
>  > > > This will accept whatever is produced by <= 2.41 and the final binary
>  > > > will be correct. There is also a new ld flag (--check-uleb128) which
>  > > > can produce a warning if it detects an issue.
>  > > >
>  > > > I plan/hope to use binutils 2.42 in Fedora/RISCV 40. That would happen
>  > > > before I start mass rebuilding, and that should fix this.
>  > >
>  > > Cc:ing Nick and Siddhesh for awareness.
>  > >
>  > > The current plan is to use binutils 2.41 for the mass rebuild.
>  >
>  > In Fedora/RISCV we typically end up using the latest available
>  > binutils. We are slightly different from upstream/normal Fedora.
>
>  Which is fine when you're an out of mainline architecture but these
>  sorts of things need to be resolved well and truly before any
>  incorporation can happen. 
100% true. We have plenty of stuff that isn't yet submitted to the
official dist-git.

I have been considering not going for 2.42 for Fedora 40, but we will
do this again one more time (hopefully it's the last time, but you
never know).

> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Peter Robinson]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 5:15 PM David Abdurachmanov
<david.abdurachmanov(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 6:26 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:05 PM David Abdurachmanov
>  > <david.abdurachmanov(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > >
>  > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:54 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt;
> wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > * David Abdurachmanov:
>  > > >
>  > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Richard W.M. Jones
> <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >> I'm not sure exactly the effect on RISC-V binaries, but I
> wanted to
>  > > > >> raise it here to get the attention of the Fedora toolchain team
> ...
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >> Here's the bug:
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
>  > > > >> RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41
> objects
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >> It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >> As far as I understand the issue (which is not too far) this
> mainly
>  > > > >> affects shipped *.o and *.a files (ie. static libraries and
> similar)
>  > > > >> which were compiled with binutils < 2.41, which either
> won't link
>  > > > >> correctly or will give a linker error when using GNU ld from
> binutils 2.41.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Correction. This is broken in <= 2.41 (incl. the current stable
>  > > > > binutils release).
>  > > > >
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >> Unclear if it also affects *.so files (which would be a much
> more
>  > > > >> serious ABI break), and also if it affects most binaries or just
> a
>  > > > >> few.  I initially thought this only affected programs using 128
> bit
>  > > > >> ints, so didn't think it was too important, but after reading
> the
>  > > > >> commit I'm not sure that is really true.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Nelson Chu committed (5 days ago) a change:
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  > > > >
>  > > > > This will accept whatever is produced by <= 2.41 and the final
> binary
>  > > > > will be correct. There is also a new ld flag (--check-uleb128) which
>  > > > > can produce a warning if it detects an issue.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > I plan/hope to use binutils 2.42 in Fedora/RISCV 40. That would
> happen
>  > > > > before I start mass rebuilding, and that should fix this.
>  > > >
>  > > > Cc:ing Nick and Siddhesh for awareness.
>  > > >
>  > > > The current plan is to use binutils 2.41 for the mass rebuild.
>  > >
>  > > In Fedora/RISCV we typically end up using the latest available
>  > > binutils. We are slightly different from upstream/normal Fedora.
>  >
>  > Which is fine when you're an out of mainline architecture but these
>  > sorts of things need to be resolved well and truly before any
>  > incorporation can happen.
>
>  100% true. We have plenty of stuff that isn't yet submitted to the
>  official dist-git. 
Is that delta easily viewable somewhere?

> I have been considering not going for 2.42 for Fedora 40, but we will
> do this again one more time (hopefully it's the last time, but you
> never know).
>
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 7:20 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 5:15 PM David Abdurachmanov
>  <david.abdurachmanov(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  >
>  > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 6:26 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > >
>  > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:05 PM David Abdurachmanov
>  > > <david.abdurachmanov(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 3:54 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt;
> wrote:
>  > > > >
>  > > > > * David Abdurachmanov:
>  > > > >
>  > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:09 PM Richard W.M. Jones
> <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > >> I'm not sure exactly the effect on RISC-V binaries, but
> I wanted to
>  > > > > >> raise it here to get the attention of the Fedora toolchain
> team ...
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > >> Here's the bug:
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
>  > > > > >> RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with
> 2.41 objects
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > >> It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > >>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > >> As far as I understand the issue (which is not too far) this
> mainly
>  > > > > >> affects shipped *.o and *.a files (ie. static libraries and
> similar)
>  > > > > >> which were compiled with binutils < 2.41, which either
> won't link
>  > > > > >> correctly or will give a linker error when using GNU ld from
> binutils 2.41.
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > Correction. This is broken in <= 2.41 (incl. the current
> stable
>  > > > > > binutils release).
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > >>
>  > > > > >> Unclear if it also affects *.so files (which would be a much
> more
>  > > > > >> serious ABI break), and also if it affects most binaries or
> just a
>  > > > > >> few.  I initially thought this only affected programs using
> 128 bit
>  > > > > >> ints, so didn't think it was too important, but after
> reading the
>  > > > > >> commit I'm not sure that is really true.
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > Nelson Chu committed (5 days ago) a change:
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > >
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > This will accept whatever is produced by <= 2.41 and the
> final binary
>  > > > > > will be correct. There is also a new ld flag (--check-uleb128)
> which
>  > > > > > can produce a warning if it detects an issue.
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > I plan/hope to use binutils 2.42 in Fedora/RISCV 40. That would
> happen
>  > > > > > before I start mass rebuilding, and that should fix this.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Cc:ing Nick and Siddhesh for awareness.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > The current plan is to use binutils 2.41 for the mass rebuild.
>  > > >
>  > > > In Fedora/RISCV we typically end up using the latest available
>  > > > binutils. We are slightly different from upstream/normal Fedora.
>  > >
>  > > Which is fine when you're an out of mainline architecture but these
>  > > sorts of things need to be resolved well and truly before any
>  > > incorporation can happen.
>  >
>  > 100% true. We have plenty of stuff that isn't yet submitted to the
>  > official dist-git.
>
>  Is that delta easily viewable somewhere? 
Kinda.

If you list all the builds for the f40 tag in Fedora/RISCV Koji, and
then look for the .X.riscv64 pattern before %{?dist} you will get a
list of packages that are modified in some way. Today that's around
~277 packages. A good portion of those are easy fixes (e.g. a lot of
packages assume that valgrind is available on just any arch, and never
check %{valgrind_arches}). Some of the changes are bigger, like full
ports, that for one or another reason were not accepted upstream
(yet).

Not all the changes are good to for a PR. Thus some definitely need
some refinement to do the correct thing.

Then actual changes are here: http://fedora.riscv.rocks:3000/rpms/<pkg_name>
Typically this should have a branch with "-riscv64" suffix, e.g.,
f38-riscv64 or main-riscv64.

I hope to reduce that to a minimum during Fedora 40, but I am not
making any promises.

Cheers,
david

>
> > I have been considering not going for 2.42 for Fedora 40, but we will
> > do this again one more time (hopefully it's the last time, but you
> > never know).
> >
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > > List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > > Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Nick Clifton]

Hi David, Hi Florian,

> >>> Here's the bug:
> >>>
> >>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
> >>> RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41 objects
> >>>
> >>> It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
FYI, a second patch is also needed: "RISC-V: Clarify the behaviors of SET/ADD/SUB
relocations."
This is commit: 2029e13917d53d2289d3ebb390c4f40bd2112d21


>  In Fedora/RISCV we typically end up using the latest available
>  binutils. We are slightly different from upstream/normal Fedora. 
I have now backported both of the above commits to rawhide binutils.
Build: binutils-2.31-18.fc40

Cheers
   Nick

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:20 AM Nick Clifton <nickc(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi David, Hi Florian,
>
>  >>>> Here's the bug:
>  >>>>
>  >>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31179
>  >>>> RISC-V: The SET/ADD/SUB fix breaks ABI compatibility with 2.41 objects
>  >>>>
>  >>>> It refers to this change in binutils 2.41:
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=73d931e560059a8...
>
>  FYI, a second patch is also needed: "RISC-V: Clarify the behaviors of SET/ADD/SUB
> relocations."
>  This is commit: 2029e13917d53d2289d3ebb390c4f40bd2112d21 
Yes. This one is the actual fix. The one mentioned above is a
temporary workaround to accept older broken object files.

>  > In Fedora/RISCV we typically end up using the latest available
>  > binutils. We are slightly different from upstream/normal Fedora.
>
>  I have now backported both of the above commits to rawhide binutils.
>  Build: binutils-2.31-18.fc40 
I saw you making some builds, and I had a guess that you are most
likely working on it :)

binutils-2.31-18.fc40 didn't land in f40 as Bodhi CI gating marked it
as failed. The failures don't seem to be related to binutils package
itself. Seems like CI test is/was broken, or maybe a temporary network
issue, or something else.

Cheers,
david

>
> Cheers
>    Nick
>
>

[Nick Clifton]

Hi David,

>  binutils-2.31-18.fc40 didn't land in f40 as Bodhi CI gating
> marked it
>  as failed. The failures don't seem to be related to binutils package
>  itself. Seems like CI test is/was broken, or maybe a temporary network
>  issue, or something else. 
It looks like rpminspect does not like two of the licenses used
by the binutils:

   BAD
   Unapproved license in binutils-2.41-19.fc40.src:
   GPL-2.0-or-later LGPL-2.1-or-later

Which seems wrong to me, since they are listed in the allowed
licenses list for Fedora.  I'll ask David Cantrell about it.

Cheers
   Nick

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 4:07 PM Nick Clifton <nickc(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi David,
>
>  > binutils-2.31-18.fc40 didn't land in f40 as Bodhi CI gating marked it
>  > as failed. The failures don't seem to be related to binutils package
>  > itself. Seems like CI test is/was broken, or maybe a temporary network
>  > issue, or something else.
>
>  It looks like rpminspect does not like two of the licenses used
>  by the binutils:
>
>     BAD
>     Unapproved license in binutils-2.41-19.fc40.src:
>     GPL-2.0-or-later LGPL-2.1-or-later
>
>  Which seems wrong to me, since they are listed in the allowed
>  licenses list for Fedora.  I'll ask David Cantrell about it. 
I think this one was always failing. The one that probably causes the
issue in Bodhi is: fedora-ci.koji-build.tier0.functional

There is already a comment for binutils-2.41-19.fc40 in Bodhi.
Basically the existing test will fail due to wget -> wget2 change. It
sounds like you need to ignore this failing test for now.

Cheers,
david

>
> Cheers
>    Nick
>
>