[Bug 218884] emulators/open-vm-tools*: breaks if libunwind installed

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218884

            Bug ID: 218884
           Summary: emulators/open-vm-tools*: breaks if libunwind
                    installed
           Product: Ports & Packages
           Version: Latest
          Hardware: Any
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Some People
          Priority: ---
         Component: Individual Port(s)
          Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs at FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: z7dr6ut7gs at snkmail.com

I get the following error when building open-vm-tools{,-nox11}:

================
utilBacktrace.c:156:20: error: implicit declaration of function
'_Unwind_GetCFA' is invalid in C99
      [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
   uintptr_t cfa = _Unwind_GetCFA(ctx);
                   ^
utilBacktrace.c:358:4: error: implicit declaration of function
'_Unwind_Backtrace' is invalid in C99
      [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
   _Unwind_Backtrace(UtilBacktraceFromPointerCallback, &data);
================

This happens if the build detects libunwind (and adds -DHAVE_LIBUNWIND_H=1
during build).  Reproduce by installing the libunwind port and trying to build
open-vm-tools*.

If unwind.h is not available, you don't get the error.

Or if the libunwind port is installed, and you add -D_GNU_SOURCE, then you
don't get the error.

Or if the unwind.h is detected and you build with gcc5 or gcc6, then you don't
get the error.  Those gcc ports both have an internal version of unwind.h

See also
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-virtualization/2017-January/005186.html

I don't think it's vital for a working open-vm-tools to have unwind enabled. 
So disabling unwind at configure time seems right until all supported compilers
support unwind.  There's no configure switch for --without-unwind or anything,
so it'd be a patch against configure.

Alternately, we could pass in -D_GNU_SOURCE.

I can put together a patch.  Let me know what you think about the above and
which option seems best.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.