New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

src: unbreak build when compiling against uclibc #8308

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 5, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@bnoordhuis
Member

bnoordhuis commented Aug 28, 2016

It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both __GLIBC__
and __UCLIBC__ to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?"
logic.

Assume that when __UCLIBC__ is defined, we are dealing with a libc
that does not have execinfo.h.

Fixes: #8233

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis added the C++ label Aug 28, 2016

@cjihrig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cjihrig

cjihrig Aug 28, 2016

Contributor

LGTM

Contributor

cjihrig commented Aug 28, 2016

LGTM

@jbergstroem

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jbergstroem
Member

jbergstroem commented Aug 28, 2016

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/4810/
Additional test against musl: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-jbergstroem-alpine34/11/ (execinfo doesn't exist on musl either)

@jasnell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasnell

jasnell Aug 30, 2016

Member

LGTM

Member

jasnell commented Aug 30, 2016

LGTM

src: unbreak build when compiling against uclibc
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both `__GLIBC__`
and `__UCLIBC__` to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?"
logic.

Assume that when `__UCLIBC__` is defined, we are dealing with a libc
that does not have execinfo.h.

Fixes: #8233
PR-URL: #8308
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis closed this Sep 5, 2016

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis deleted the bnoordhuis:fix8233 branch Sep 5, 2016

@bnoordhuis bnoordhuis merged commit a290ddf into nodejs:master Sep 5, 2016

@Fishrock123 Fishrock123 referenced this pull request Sep 6, 2016

Closed

v6.6.0 pre-proposal #8428

Fishrock123 added a commit to Fishrock123/node that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2016

src: unbreak build when compiling against uclibc
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both `__GLIBC__`
and `__UCLIBC__` to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?"
logic.

Assume that when `__UCLIBC__` is defined, we are dealing with a libc
that does not have execinfo.h.

Fixes: nodejs#8233
PR-URL: nodejs#8308
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

Fishrock123 added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2016

src: unbreak build when compiling against uclibc
It seems that it is possible with some toolchains for both `__GLIBC__`
and `__UCLIBC__` to be defined, confusing our "do we have execinfo.h?"
logic.

Assume that when `__UCLIBC__` is defined, we are dealing with a libc
that does not have execinfo.h.

Fixes: #8233
PR-URL: #8308
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
@MylesBorins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MylesBorins

MylesBorins Sep 30, 2016

Member

@bnoordhuis backport to v4?

Member

MylesBorins commented Sep 30, 2016

@bnoordhuis backport to v4?

@bnoordhuis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnoordhuis

bnoordhuis Oct 1, 2016

Member

Yes.

Member

bnoordhuis commented Oct 1, 2016

Yes.

@MylesBorins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MylesBorins

MylesBorins Oct 11, 2016

Member

@bnoordhuis src/backtrace_posix.cc does not exist on v4.x. The source also does not appear to be present. Am I missing something?

Member

MylesBorins commented Oct 11, 2016

@bnoordhuis src/backtrace_posix.cc does not exist on v4.x. The source also does not appear to be present. Am I missing something?

@bnoordhuis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bnoordhuis

bnoordhuis Oct 11, 2016

Member

Sorry, it depends on #6734 which is tagged but not back-ported yet. I don't know if or when I'll get around to that.

Member

bnoordhuis commented Oct 11, 2016

Sorry, it depends on #6734 which is tagged but not back-ported yet. I don't know if or when I'll get around to that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment