Some libstdc++-v3 tests in gcc fail because kernel-headers on s390x has in /usr/include/asm/types.h } __attribute__((packed, aligned(4))) __vector128; see https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/gcc/14.0.1/0.15.fc40/data/logs/s390x/build.log FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++1998/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++2011/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++2014/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++2017/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++2020/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) These tests attempt to verify that libstdc++ headers themselves never use __attribute__((packed)) etc., but __attribute__((__packed__)) etc., because the former are in the implementation namespace. grep __attribute__ `rpm -ql kernel-headers` 2>/dev/null | grep -v '((__' shows hundreds of hits (of course, in some headers it is far more important than in others, the more important ones are those typically included by glibc or libstdc++ headers directly or indirectly). I think kernel folks don't really want to switch to using those __ prefixed and suffixed versions, could this be done by some sed/awk/python script done when preparing the headers for shipping as user asm/ and linux/ headers? grep __attribute__ `rpm -ql kernel-headers` 2>/dev/null | grep -v '((__' | sed 's/^.*ttribute__[[:blank:]]*((//;s/))\([^)]*\|$\)//' | sort -u aligned(256); aligned(4); aligned(4) packed_ulong; aligned(4 * sizeof(__u64)); aligned(8) aligned(8); aligned(8) *config; aligned(8) timestamp_ns; aligned (__alignof__(struct ebt_replace)); aligned(sizeof(__u64)); aligned(VRING_AVAIL_ALIGN_SIZE) aligned(VRING_DESC_ALIGN_SIZE) aligned(VRING_USED_ALIGN_SIZE) bitwise packed packed, aligned(4); packed,aligned(4) packed, deprecated shows that it is really just a couple of attributes and uglifying their names shouldn't be that hard inside of __attribute__(( ... )) arguments. Reproducible: Always
This sounds like something that should really be changed upstream. If they are not willing, it would be worth having a discussion with at least RHEL, to make sure we have a single solution that works with everything.
Sure, feel free to forward it there. I wasn't where kernel-headers bugreporting goes to, if it acts as a separate project or is handled together with the kernel. Because I doubt kernel itself wants to uglify all their attribute names.
It is not a separate project, and comes directly from the kernel. The only reason that fedora builds it as a separate package is to get around the chicken/egg problem when things like perf define something new in headers, and then need to use that build. RHEL builds kernel-headers as a subpackage of kernel. So if kernel is not interested, this needs to at least be a discussion with RHEL so make sure that both Fedora and RHEL are on the same page about it.
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 40 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 40 on 2025-05-13. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '40'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 40 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
Fedora Linux 40 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2025-05-13. Fedora Linux 40 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see the version field. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an active release. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.