Bug#823224: ld: arch/powerpc/lib/crtsavres.o: No such file: No such file or directory
I have discovered a notice that we must direct you a fax, but I couldn't see your proper number where to direct it. So I send this fax here:
affiliates.mojovideomarketing.com/camden-beatty/823224-66.zip
Control: found -1 5.10.28-1
On Sun, 2021-05-02 at 08:55 +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:04:27PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 22:18 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > > Hi Mathieu!
> > >
> > > I'm now running into exactly this problem when trying to build the SPL library
> > > on a native ppc64 system for ZFS-on-Linux, see below.
> > >
> > > Can you give me a pointer on how to resolve this issue?
> > >
> > > configure:15763: checking whether modules can be built
> > > configure:15786: cp conftest.c build && make modules -C /usr/src/linux-headers-4.13.0-1-powerpc64 EXTRA_CFLAGS=-Werror-implicit-function-declaration
> > > M=/home/glaubitz/zfstests/spl/build
> > > /bin/sh: 1: /usr/src/linux-headers-4.13.0-1-common/scripts/ld-version.sh: not found
> > > /bin/sh: 1: [: -ge: unexpected operator
> > > ld: cannot find arch/powerpc/lib/crtsavres.o: No such file or directory
> > [...]
> >
> > This is a different problem. powerpc 64-bit builds have started using
> > that script since 4.13:
> >
> > commit efe0160cfd40a99c052a00e174787c1f4158a9cd
> > Author: Nicholas Piggin
> > Date: Fri May 12 01:56:52 2017 +1000
> >
> > powerpc/64: Linker on-demand sfpr functions for modules
> >
> > So we should either ship the script or patch out the version test.
>
> Is this still an issue for us or can the bug be closed?
We ship that script since 4.13.10-1, and zfs-linux's configure script
is successful on sid/ppc64el (and sid/powerpc). But that is a
different bug.
The original bug report was about the upstream modules_prepare target
not building crtsavres.o. And that's still reproducible with 5.10.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
For every complex problem
there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Reply to: