Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=60925&edit=1
ID: 60925
User updated by: tg at debian dot org
Reported by: tg at debian dot org
Summary: fpm_atomic.h says unknown processor (m68k)
-Status: Feedback
+Status: Open
Type: Bug
Package: Compile Failure
Operating System: Linux
PHP Version: 5.3.9
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
gcc version 4.6.2 (Debian 4.6.2-12)
I know for sure it does NOT support __sync_* atomic builtins;
on m68k, gcc-4.7 will introduce them, and a backport is not
likely (I looked at it, but it depends on mach-indep changes
that arenât in 4.6 and I fear to break other things by that).
Several other architectures also do not have support for them
(but I can only sort-of speak for m68k at the moment).
Do I still need to try building a vanilla tarball with this
information?
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-01-30 12:24:51] aharvey@php.net
This isn't a regression in PHP as such, as the Debian 5.3.3-7 package had a
patch specifically to use gcc's atomic builtins where available. A modified
version of that patch was brought upstream in the fix for bug #52407 and
released in 5.3.4.
Can you please try building a vanilla PHP tarball? It would also be helpful to
get the version of gcc you're running and the bit of config.log including and
immediately following the line "checking if gcc supports
__sync_bool_compare_and_swap".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012-01-29 19:31:04] tg at debian dot org
Description:
------------
/tmp/buildd/php5-5.3.9/sapi/fpm/fpm/fpm_atomic.h:142:2: error: #error Unsupported processor. Please
open a bug report (bugs.php.net).
This is on:
Linux ara5.mirbsd.org 3.2.0-1+m68k.1-atari #1 Mon Jan 23 06:44:50 UTC 2012 m68k GNU/Linux
php5_5.3.3-7 compiled, so this is a regression.
Test script:
---------------
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=60925&edit=1