Bug 1423312

Summary: cppcheck: FTBFS in rawhide
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Fedora Release Engineering <releng>
Component: cppcheckAssignee: Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: jwakely, mtasaka, susi.lehtola
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-02-17 05:16:04 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1423041    
Attachments:
Description Flags
build.log
none
root.log
none
state.log none

Description Fedora Release Engineering 2017-02-17 03:35:12 UTC 
Your package cppcheck failed to build from source in current rawhide.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17712598

For details on mass rebuild see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Mass_Rebuild
Comment 1 Fedora Release Engineering 2017-02-17 03:35:21 UTC 
Created attachment 1251687 [details]
build.log
Comment 2 Fedora Release Engineering 2017-02-17 03:35:24 UTC 
Created attachment 1251688 [details]
root.log
Comment 3 Fedora Release Engineering 2017-02-17 03:35:27 UTC 
Created attachment 1251689 [details]
state.log
Comment 4 Upstream Release Monitoring 2017-02-17 05:07:58 UTC 
mtasaka's cppcheck-1.77-3.fc26 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=859801
Comment 5 Jonathan Wakely 2017-02-20 12:36:53 UTC 
The cppcheck code was unconventional but it was valid. It was rejected due to a GCC bug. I created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977 to track that bug. The patch in cppcheck-1.77-3.fc26 makes the code more idiomatic C++ and avoids the GCC bug.

mtasaka, please could you add that GCC bug URL to the upstream ticket at http://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/7910 so they have that information. Thanks.
Comment 6 Mamoru TASAKA 2017-02-20 12:51:56 UTC 
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> The cppcheck code was unconventional but it was valid. It was rejected due
> to a GCC bug. I created https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977
> to track that bug. The patch in cppcheck-1.77-3.fc26 makes the code more
> idiomatic C++ and avoids the GCC bug.

Looks like https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61977 is some different bug. Would you point to the corrent bug?
Comment 7 Jonathan Wakely 2017-02-20 14:11:36 UTC 
Sorry, I meant https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79566
Comment 8 Mamoru TASAKA 2017-02-20 14:29:23 UTC 
Okay, thank you. Reported cppcheck upstream.
Comment 9 Mamoru TASAKA 2017-02-27 07:44:56 UTC 
Confirmed that this is fixed in gcc-7.0.1-0.10.fc26 .