Hide Forgot
Shouldn't libunwind package contain libunwind-setjmp lib? I can see that it is officially part of the library (see docs), furthermore, OpenSUSE's linunwind package installs this. Thanks in advance
It is removed as on Fedora package depends on it and it is broken in libunwind as it conflicts with glibc. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=libunwind.git;a=blob_plain;f=libunwind-disable-setjmp.patch;hb=master * Wed Jul 15 2009 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil> - 0.99-0.11.20090430betagit4b8404d1 - Disable the libunwind-setjmp library as no longer compatible with glibc and no Fedora dependencies on it (FTBSFS BZ 511562). If you have a neede for libunwind-setjmp please reopen this Bug and I will fix the upstream libunwind problem of its incompatibility with glibc (or check if SuSE has some downstream patch for it or so). Thanks.
Thanks for info. Honestly, I do not see how it can conflict with glibc. libunwind-setjmp is meant to provide replacement for corresponding glibc's functions. The implementation seems to be pretty straightforward: setjmp 38 int 39 setjmp (env) 40 jmp_buf env; 41 { 42 void **wp = (void **) env; 43 44 /* this should work on most platforms, but may not be 45 performance-optimal; check the code! */ 46 wp[JB_SP] = __builtin_frame_address (0); 47 wp[JB_RP] = (void *) __builtin_return_address (0); 48 return 0; 49 } uses simple gcc's builtins. longjmp is little longer but internally it calls libunwind functions like unw_set_reg, unw_step and unw_resume (which presumably work if we assume that libunwind works). I am unsure whether reasons for rejecting this part of libunwind are still valid. Please investigate. Thank you for your time.
(In reply to comment #2) > Thanks for info. Honestly, I do not see how it can conflict with glibc. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3160598&name=build.log /usr/include/bits/setjmp2.h:26:13: error: 'longjmp' aliased to undefined symbol '_longjmp' > libunwind-setjmp is meant to provide replacement for corresponding glibc's > functions. And what is it good for? AFAIK it only has a bit better performance then. > I am unsure whether reasons for rejecting this part of libunwind are still > valid. The error above on the build right now seems very valid. > Please investigate. Sure I could fix it but so far I do not see any user for libunwind-setjmp. Life is too short to fix any bug one can find. :-)
(In reply to comment #3) > > Sure I could fix it but so far I do not see any user for libunwind-setjmp. > Life is too short to fix any bug one can find. :-) All right then, guess you're right :-)