Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> skribis:
> 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?
Given that ‘core-updates’ is still in the stage where we haven’t build
everything, you could push this ‘substitute*’ statement now IMO.
It’s pretty bad that software insists on using /lib64 down the road,
though.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
