gcc-5_5.3.1-16ubuntu2 et.al. Which have this bugfix. As the bugfix for this PR was applied in gcc-5 5.3.1-15.
Thus ceph-test_10.1.2-0ubuntu1_s390x.deb should be good. Could you please double check that? Is our toolchain fix in yakkety incomplete, and/or if the validation scripts suggest a false positive? Note that gcc-6 source package provides e.g. libgcc1 for the build, and I'm not sure if gcc-6 was patch for this issue already.
Similarally these are flagged up as bad in yakkety, yet were built with good toolchain already (complete list):
Could you double check them in case we are missing fixes in toolchains, and/or false positives. It could be that these link a static libgcc1 from gcc-6 which is unfixed. And if we have this bug in libgcc.a the scope for this bug is much larger.
@Andreas.Krebbel
ceph-test_ 10.1.2- 0ubuntu1_ s390x.deb
Was compiled with
gcc-5_5. 3.1-16ubuntu2 et.al. Which have this bugfix. As the bugfix for this PR was applied in gcc-5 5.3.1-15.
Thus ceph-test_ 10.1.2- 0ubuntu1_ s390x.deb should be good. Could you please double check that? Is our toolchain fix in yakkety incomplete, and/or if the validation scripts suggest a false positive? Note that gcc-6 source package provides e.g. libgcc1 for the build, and I'm not sure if gcc-6 was patch for this issue already.
Similarally these are flagged up as bad in yakkety, yet were built with good toolchain already (complete list):
ceph-test_ 10.1.2- 0ubuntu1_ s390x.deb 6build1_ s390x.deb 2_3.2.4- 0ubuntu1_ s390x.deb 1.2.11a1- 6build1_ s390x.deb
higan_094-
juju-mongodb3.
libiv-unidraw1_
Could you double check them in case we are missing fixes in toolchains, and/or false positives. It could be that these link a static libgcc1 from gcc-6 which is unfixed. And if we have this bug in libgcc.a the scope for this bug is much larger.