On February 22, 2017 9:42:58 PM GMT+02:00, Efraim Flashner
<efr...@flashner.co.il> wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:51:20PM +0200, Efraim Flashner wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:51:47AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> > Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> skribis:
>> >
>> > >> + ;; Force Aarch64 libdir to be /lib and not /lib64
>> > >> + (substitute* "gcc/config/aarch64/t-aarch64-linux"
>> > >> + (("lib64") "lib"))
>> > >> +
>> > >
>> > > I'd amend the comment to say why.
>> >
>> > I think we should just skip this patch. There’s no reason one
>> > architecture should be treated different from the others in that
>> > respect.
>> >
>> > WDYT, Efraim?
>> >
>> > Ludo’.
>>
>> I don't think it should cause a problem either way. As far as I can
>tell
>> it doesn't make a difference to the software built further down the
>> line.
>>
>
>Looks like I spoke too soon. I tried to build gccgo which failed at the
>linking stage, since it turned out libgcc_s was in gccgo/lib64 and not
>gccgo/lib. I then tried gcc@4.9 and had a similar failure, the lib
>files
>were split between lib and lib64. Other than this patch (with a when
>file-exists), the other idea is to change libdir in gcc.scm:86 to be
>lib64 on aarch64.
>
>Unfortunately it looks like it'd cause a full rebuild on core-updates.
>I'll test it overnight and see how it goes.
>
>--
>Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר
>GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
>Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received
>unencrypted
As is, all of our GCC versions FTBFS on aarch64, except the versions used
during bootstrapping. This includes gccgo, but I haven't checked the other
'special GCCs' to see if also affects them.
With the above patch I was able to build GCC@4.9 and gccgo, and gccgo@5 failed
as expected.
Unfortunately pushing this patch would result in a full rebuild on
core-updates. Suggestions?
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
