Bug 1423312 - cppcheck: FTBFS in rawhide
Summary: cppcheck: FTBFS in rawhide
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: cppcheck
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Susi Lehtola
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: F26FTBFS
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-02-17 03:35 UTC by Fedora Release Engineering
Modified: 2017-02-27 07:44 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-02-17 05:16:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
build.log (912.67 KB, text/plain)
2017-02-17 03:35 UTC, Fedora Release Engineering
no flags Details
root.log (93.53 KB, text/plain)
2017-02-17 03:35 UTC, Fedora Release Engineering
no flags Details
state.log (619 bytes, text/plain)
2017-02-17 03:35 UTC, Fedora Release Engineering
no flags Details

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 .


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.