Bug 430647 - gcc compile affected by non-existent include directory
Summary: gcc compile affected by non-existent include directory
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gcc
Version: 10
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jakub Jelinek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-01-29 10:12 UTC by JW
Modified: 2009-12-18 06:03 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-12-18 06:03:14 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description JW 2008-01-29 10:12:11 UTC
Description of problem:
gcc exhibits aberrant behavior when give certain non-existent include paths

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
gcc-4.1.2-33

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Create this file (x.c):
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <fcntl.h>
    void dummy(void)
    {
        open("file", O_RDONLY);
    }

2.  Compile with: "gcc -O2 -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -c x.c"
3.  Compile with: "gcc -I -O2 -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -c x.c"
4.  Compile with: "gcc -I xxx -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -c x.c"
5.  Compile with: "gcc -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -c x.c"
  
Actual results:
2. ok
3. error
4. ok
5. ok

Expected results:
should all compile ok

Additional info:
In cases 3 and 4 a non-existent include path is specified (unusual "-O2"
mistaken as path ... real example can easily occur in bad generated Makefiles).
Cases 3 and 4 should be identical because both have bad include path, and both
have optimization unspecified.  Using -v flag confirms that "-O2" and "xxx" are
both treated as bad paths.

Comment 1 Bug Zapper 2008-11-26 09:37:18 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 8 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 8.  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bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.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 WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '8'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 8's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 8 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 please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 2 Jakub Jelinek 2008-11-26 21:23:45 UTC
What errors do you see on F10?  I certainly can't reproduce this, it compiles just fine.

Comment 3 JW 2008-11-27 03:01:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> What errors do you see on F10?  I certainly can't reproduce this, it compiles
> just fine.

Then why didn't you just close the bug, and report what gcc version it is fixed in, rather that waiting until eventually the bug report gets automatically closed by default when fc8 obsoletes?

The version of gcc is more important than the os version.  Since it is perfectly reasonable to install the same version of gcc on fc8 as is currently on fc10, I find it difficult to understand why RedHat initiates mass bug closures based purely on the os version.  It seems quite a lazy way to handle bug reports.

Please provide more details of your testing.

Comment 4 Bug Zapper 2009-11-18 10:09:32 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 10.  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 WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '10'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 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 please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 5 Bug Zapper 2009-12-18 06:03:14 UTC
Fedora 10 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-12-17. Fedora 10 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 please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.


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