Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Greg Miller]

On 2/21/13, Lowell Gilbert  wrote:
> Greg Miller  writes:
>
>> On 2/21/13, Daniel Kalchev  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21.02.13 04:23, Greg Miller wrote:
 I can't speak for the OP, but I tried it because clang, gcc46, and
 gcc47 wouldn't produce a working executable at all for a long time
 (and continue to fail) on my 9.0 and 9.1 systems. There's been so much
 libreoffice breakage that I don't even bother reporting it or making
 much effort to fix it. I just reboot to Windows for the cases where I
 need a working libreoffice. I don't much care whether gcc 4.2 produces
 a working libreoffice; I just wish something did.
>>>
>>> Did you build the Windows version yourself from source?
>>>
>>> If not, why you just don't get the binary WhateverOffice for FreeBSD and
>>> be done with this "problem"? That will surely save you the reboots. At
>>> least.
>>
>> One reason I moved from Linux to FreeBSD many years ago was to get
>> away from binary dependency hell, so I've been reluctant to try any
>> large binary packages in quite a while.
>>
>> In any case, some people in the thread wanted to know why others try
>> to build with something other than the default compiler, and one of
>> the answers is "it doesn't build with the default compiler, at least
>> for some of us." If you have a problem with that, you'll just have to
>> live with it.
>
> The port of libreoffice doesn't build with the system default
> compiler (if it's gcc; looks like clang will work), and won't do so
> even if you ask it to. The original poster thinks this is a problem,
> but since you didn't notice (or at least mention) the distinction,
> I'm not sure what position your argument is supporting.
>
> No compiler will build all of the programs in the ports collection,
> but as long as the ports infrastructure supports that fact, it isn't
> a problem. [In my opinion.]

When I said "default compiler", I meant the default for the port
(which was clang 3.1 from base on my system at the I sent that email),
not the system compiler. That seems to be fixed now with the latest
version of the libreoffice port, which pulls in lang/clang, which does
seem to get the job done nicely.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Lowell Gilbert]

Greg Miller  writes:

> On 2/21/13, Daniel Kalchev  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21.02.13 04:23, Greg Miller wrote:
>>> I can't speak for the OP, but I tried it because clang, gcc46, and
>>> gcc47 wouldn't produce a working executable at all for a long time
>>> (and continue to fail) on my 9.0 and 9.1 systems. There's been so much
>>> libreoffice breakage that I don't even bother reporting it or making
>>> much effort to fix it. I just reboot to Windows for the cases where I
>>> need a working libreoffice. I don't much care whether gcc 4.2 produces
>>> a working libreoffice; I just wish something did.
>>
>> Did you build the Windows version yourself from source?
>>
>> If not, why you just don't get the binary WhateverOffice for FreeBSD and
>> be done with this "problem"? That will surely save you the reboots. At
>> least.
>
> One reason I moved from Linux to FreeBSD many years ago was to get
> away from binary dependency hell, so I've been reluctant to try any
> large binary packages in quite a while.
>
> In any case, some people in the thread wanted to know why others try
> to build with something other than the default compiler, and one of
> the answers is "it doesn't build with the default compiler, at least
> for some of us." If you have a problem with that, you'll just have to
> live with it.

The port of libreoffice doesn't build with the system default
compiler (if it's gcc; looks like clang will work), and won't do so
even if you ask it to. The original poster thinks this is a problem,
but since you didn't notice (or at least mention) the distinction,
I'm not sure what position your argument is supporting.

No compiler will build all of the programs in the ports collection,
but as long as the ports infrastructure supports that fact, it isn't
a problem. [In my opinion.]
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Greg Miller]

On 2/21/13, Daniel Kalchev  wrote:
>
>
> On 21.02.13 04:23, Greg Miller wrote:
>> I can't speak for the OP, but I tried it because clang, gcc46, and
>> gcc47 wouldn't produce a working executable at all for a long time
>> (and continue to fail) on my 9.0 and 9.1 systems. There's been so much
>> libreoffice breakage that I don't even bother reporting it or making
>> much effort to fix it. I just reboot to Windows for the cases where I
>> need a working libreoffice. I don't much care whether gcc 4.2 produces
>> a working libreoffice; I just wish something did.
>
> Did you build the Windows version yourself from source?
>
> If not, why you just don't get the binary WhateverOffice for FreeBSD and
> be done with this "problem"? That will surely save you the reboots. At
> least.

One reason I moved from Linux to FreeBSD many years ago was to get
away from binary dependency hell, so I've been reluctant to try any
large binary packages in quite a while.

In any case, some people in the thread wanted to know why others try
to build with something other than the default compiler, and one of
the answers is "it doesn't build with the default compiler, at least
for some of us." If you have a problem with that, you'll just have to
live with it.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Walter Hurry]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:35:35 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:

> Just for the record, is find that it works fine for me with gcc-4.6.
> 9.1-STABLE on i386 system. Building it with the default compiler results
> in a successful build, but the program would simply exit after a few
> seconds with no error. The exist status was 0. No messages. When I built
> with 4.6, it builds and runs fine, at least for the things I've tried.
> (4.6 invoked by setting WITH_GCC.)

I confess I don't understand what all the fuss is about. LO *wants* to 
build with clang, clang is part of base, and LO builds and runs perfectly 
with clang (for me at any rate: 9.1-RELEASE on amd64).

What is the issue? Is there some reason of which I am unaware, why people 
want to avoid using clang/llvm?


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 21.02.13 04:23, Greg Miller wrote:

On 2/20/13, Matthias Andree  wrote:

What is your point, besides getting software from the museum to build
stuff from the relative future?

I can't speak for the OP, but I tried it because clang, gcc46, and
gcc47 wouldn't produce a working executable at all for a long time
(and continue to fail) on my 9.0 and 9.1 systems. There's been so much
libreoffice breakage that I don't even bother reporting it or making
much effort to fix it. I just reboot to Windows for the cases where I
need a working libreoffice. I don't much care whether gcc 4.2 produces
a working libreoffice; I just wish something did.


Did you build the Windows version yourself from source?

If not, why you just don't get the binary WhateverOffice for FreeBSD and 
be done with this "problem"? That will surely save you the reboots. At 
least.


Daniel
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Chris Rees]

On 21 Feb 2013 02:23, "Greg Miller"  wrote:
>
> On 2/20/13, Matthias Andree  wrote:
> > What is your point, besides getting software from the museum to build
> > stuff from the relative future?
>
> I can't speak for the OP, but I tried it because clang, gcc46, and
> gcc47 wouldn't produce a working executable at all for a long time
> (and continue to fail) on my 9.0 and 9.1 systems. There's been so much
> libreoffice breakage that I don't even bother reporting it or making
> much effort to fix it. I just reboot to Windows for the cases where I
> need a working libreoffice. I don't much care whether gcc 4.2 produces
> a working libreoffice; I just wish something did.

Try the packages Dominic Fandrey generated.

http://wiki.bsdforen.de/anwendungen/libreoffice_aus_inoffiziellen_paketen#freebsd_amd64i386_9183_kamikaze

Chris
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Greg Miller]

On 2/20/13, Matthias Andree  wrote:
> What is your point, besides getting software from the museum to build
> stuff from the relative future?

I can't speak for the OP, but I tried it because clang, gcc46, and
gcc47 wouldn't produce a working executable at all for a long time
(and continue to fail) on my 9.0 and 9.1 systems. There's been so much
libreoffice breakage that I don't even bother reporting it or making
much effort to fix it. I just reboot to Windows for the cases where I
need a working libreoffice. I don't much care whether gcc 4.2 produces
a working libreoffice; I just wish something did.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 20 February 2013 13:53, Mikhail T.  wrote:

>> As others have indicated, the toolchain provided in the base system is
>> intended only for building the base system.
> This was never true before and it is rather sad, if it were really
> becoming the truth now. More than likely, though, this is just a cheap
> excuse. Kind of like: "you did not pay for the code, did you, so don't
> expect it to work".

That's because of a mad dash for new C/C++ functionailty post 4.2
which also happened to coincide with a licence change to GPLv3.



Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

20.02.2013 15:41, Peter Jeremy ???(??):
> You left out:
>  4. Code relies on language features that are not supported by the compiler.
> (It's not a bug that gcc 4.2.1 (eg) doesn't suppert C++11)
If a compiler does not support a feature, it is supposed to error-out
upon encountering it, not generate invalid code. If this was, in fact,
the reason for the problem, it would've been a compiler bug.
>  5. Code relies on specific compiler features
Depending on what you mean by "compiler features" here, this is simply a
duplicate of either your own 4 or my 1.
> Feel free to answer your own question if it's important to you.  No-one
> else is particularly interested.
Is that why you decided to chime-in? Because you are not "particularly
interested"? Maybe, you should've remained outside this lovely
discussion, if this was really true?

Jung-uk Kim answered my question, though.
>
> As others have indicated, the toolchain provided in the base system is
> intended only for building the base system.
This was never true before and it is rather sad, if it were really
becoming the truth now. More than likely, though, this is just a cheap
excuse. Kind of like: "you did not pay for the code, did you, so don't
expect it to work".

-mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2013-Feb-19 09:23:37 -0500, "Mikhail T."  wrote:
>See, my understanding always was, the only possible reasons for a
>compiler to produce a non-starting executable are:
>
> 1. The code is buggy.
> 2. The compiler is buggy.
> 3. Both of the above.
>
>My question was, which is it?

You left out:
 4. Code relies on language features that are not supported by the compiler.
(It's not a bug that gcc 4.2.1 (eg) doesn't suppert C++11)
 5. Code relies on specific compiler features

Feel free to answer your own question if it's important to you.  No-one
else is particularly interested.

>Yes, 4.6 is supposed to work and is supported by the office@ team. My
>question was about 4.2.1, which happens to be the base cc/c++ in 8.x and
>in 9.x as well, if world was built WITHOUT_CLANG. I too observe the
>4.2.1-compiled office die at start-up -- the splash screen starts nicely
>and exits after kicking off the actual soffice.bin which segfaults.

As others have indicated, the toolchain provided in the base system is
intended only for building the base system.  If it works for you for
other purposes, that's good.  If you believe it has bugs, feel free to
submit PRs.  If the bugs don't affect the base system, they are unlikely

-- 
Peter Jeremy


pgpzlf8YtE7jb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Matthias Andree]

Am 19.02.2013 19:54, schrieb Mikhail T.:

> These were, indeed, complaints, but not about the port "not working
> after I broke it". My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of
> the box, the office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too
> easily -- comments in the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports
> filed with anyone, for example. It sure seems, no attempts were made to
> analyze the failures... I don't think, such "going with the flow" is
> responsible and am afraid, the inglorious days of building a special
> compiler just for the office will return...

Feel free to debug MyFavouriteOffice to the point where it will build
with base GCC, but don't complain if the *office teams don't look at
your patches.

If there are compiler bugs in gcc 4.2, there is no place where anyone
will care for anyone else to file them, not upstream (abandoned 4.2.X
years ago), not FreeBSD (decided to switch to clang instead).

What is your point, besides getting software from the museum to build
stuff from the relative future?

> LibreOffice's own Native_Build page
>  makes no
> mention of a required compiler version. Unless a compiler is documented
> to not support a required feature, it is supposed to work. Thus, filing
> a bug-report with LibreOffice could've been fruitful -- if it is the
> code, rather than the toolchain, that are at fault...

That will likely only buy you the compiler requirement you are currently
missing, and it is likely to be the exact version that they used to
build their official binaries, with a "newer versions may work, but no
promises" attached.

Feel free to query the LibreOffice developers if, and according to which
conditions, they'd take your patches to make LO build with our decrepit
gcc 4.2.1.

> Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the compilers
> shipped as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating system's most
> recent stable versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy? Not just old
> -- and thus unable to process more modern language-standards/features,
> but buggy -- processing those features incorrectly? There is certainly
> nothing in our errata 
> about it...

You have not yet proven that either the base compilers or LibreOffice
are at fault.

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 19.02.13 20:54, Mikhail T. wrote:
My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box, the 
office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- 
comments in the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with 
anyone, for example. It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze 
the failures... I don't think, such "going with the flow" is 
responsible and am afraid, the inglorious days of building a special 
compiler just for the office will return...


Neither of these "best open source office suites" is supposed to be 
built from source, by the "normal" user. As already mentioned, normal 
users are guided to use the pre-compiled binaries. The reasons for this 
are many and different. Only one of the reasons is that those ports are 
rather complex and let's not forget it - buggy. They more or less 
require special build environments, which are easier provided, as you 
guessed it, by an purposely configured compiler. Since the ports 
themselves are huge, compiling an relatively small compiler for the 
purpose to build the rest is ok. Count it as 'bootstrap' process. I for 
one, don't buy your argument that the makefile lacks enough "evidence" 
of why certain choices were made - it is an file with instructions for 
the computer, after all. Humans discuss these things at other places.




Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the 
compilers shipped as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating 
system's most recent stable versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy?


As already mentioned, the compilers in the base exist in order to 
compile FreeBSD and bootstrap other compilers. For that purpose, even 
the ancient gcc does the job. It even does the job for many, many ports 
as well. Nobody has ever made the promise that the base cc will compile 
any source code thrown at it.


Because it is buggy and because newer versions have different license, 
that doesn't fit well with FreeBSD, gcc is being phased out from FreeBSD 
and replaced by llvm/clang. Still a work in progress and might not be 
complete for 10.0.



On 19.02.2013 13:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:

.. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the
compiler that is known to work with it, and move on.


Such people would, perhaps, be even better served by an RPM-based 
system, don't you think? But I don't think so -- the amount of OPTIONS 
in the port is large, and a lot of people are likely to build their 
own. Not because they like  it, but because they want a PostgreSQL 
driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) interface or...




This is why it exists as source code and FreeBSD port. I myself build 
all software from source, whatever it takes. And if it requires that I 
have dozen of special-purpose gcc versions built in the process, I don't 
care.


For people with less resources and patience, there is the precompiled 
binary package. An RPM-like technology.


Daniel
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

19.02.2013 17:30, Jung-uk Kim ???(??):
> I really love to build LO with GCC 4.2, too.  I really do.  However, I
> don't see much point of mentioning that fact in PR.
You mentioned earlier, that you "believe there were plenty PRs already".
Are the patches contained in them currently in the port's files/
subdirectory?

I'd like to see, where I can get with LibreOffice people -- but I don't
want to file duplicate PRs, obviously...

-mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jung-uk Kim]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2013-02-19 15:05:13 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 14:45, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
>> Actually, I tried very hard to build sane LO with gcc 4.2 but it 
>> wasn't fruitful.  Eventually, I gave up on adding kludges after 
>> kludges because LO is moving away from pre-C++11 compilers
>> anyway. :-(
> Should not a pre-C++11 compiler simply /fail/ upon encountering
> C++11 code?

configure script detects the C++ compiler and sets various compiler
flags.  It basically tries to work around *known* issues as much as
possible.  However, it does not cover every possible combination.
"Moving away" means "not actively tested".

>>> And if there is a *good* reason to reject the base compiler,
>>> I'd expect such good reason to be documented -- preferably
>>> with bug-reports filed against either the FreeBSD and its
>>> toolchain or against the LibreOffice code. Or both...
>> I believe there were plenty PRs already.
> I can not find any :-( The ones against FreeBSD 
> 
>
> 
all talk about build failures (except the 176269
> , filed
> today). There are no relevant bug-reports against LibreOffice, that
> mention "gcc-4.2.1" 
> 
>
> 
or "gcc 4.2.1
> ".

Okay,
> 
sorry.

I really love to build LO with GCC 4.2, too.  I really do.  However, I
don't see much point of mentioning that fact in PR.

Jung-uk Kim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRI/0TAAoJECXpabHZMqHOsy0IANi1KZSRdqARfxJ65r1MLi4a
tQkCq7LmyMNA81ND1GKAatg52UDLF2GN5o9Yw71l/XiYN2JV667aGVaF9e96a789
ONnXRWaGw2DohTH8SpGu81Vstj5Vn/iots4b0bFdhz3HCW6lTgUsqlD/+n3dVVpo
c4MlUAFtEhpqejvsX7g10kPqn8IZwZc7pBUfoeSw1sMIChajxmlfXDlHkvtKwVJu
jHbu2PDMwty2kgJ1kRdYNt5yZXl9chSuSxqy23O5odfHyLWV6+SGk+SOb32MSp7H
/oJ0UdFLFzqwGSqlK7bDOMIyL0yLaPz5WJd8X+HC/BmR5FUugdILe8lHOeJ/rq0=
=ZyWD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Licensing zealotism (Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?)

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 14:54, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:

Licensing zealotism benefits no user, but I can
see it benefiting certain companies whose commercial products are
reliant on FreeBSD.  So out with it already.
But support from (and even mere adoption by) large companies benefits FreeBSD in 
a number of ways.


In any case, this is a matter for a separate thread, if any.

   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 14:45, Jung-uk Kim wrote:

Actually, I tried very hard to build sane LO with gcc 4.2 but it
wasn't fruitful.  Eventually, I gave up on adding kludges after
kludges because LO is moving away from pre-C++11 compilers anyway.:-(

Should not a pre-C++11 compiler simply /fail/ upon encountering C++11 code?

>And if there is a*good*  reason to reject the base compiler, I'd
>expect such good reason to be documented -- preferably with
>bug-reports filed against either the FreeBSD and its toolchain or
>against the LibreOffice code. Or both...
I believe there were plenty PRs already.
I can not find any :-( The ones against FreeBSD 
 
all talk about build failures (except the 176269 
, filed today). There 
are no relevant bug-reports against LibreOffice, that mention "gcc-4.2.1" 
 or "gcc 
4.2.1 ".


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jeremy Chadwick]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 02:15:03PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> The short answer is we cannot support gcc 4.6+ unless we have a
> dedicated *ports* compiler.
> {blah blah}
> What do we go from here?  I don't know.  One thing I know for sure is
> we cannot support every possible build/runtime environment.
> 
> Feel free to suggest your ideas and thoughts.

Ideas and thoughts:

1. Do away with the base system concept.  Yup, my usual broken record
commentary.  The sooner FreeBSD does away with this the better.  Do not
tell me "there are too many [compiler] possibilities to take into
account", because...

2. Go look at DragonflyBSD and how they did it.  As of February 2013 gcc
4.6 is their stock compiler (with gcc 4.4 also available because some
ports don't build with 4.6), and their build infrastructure tests
everything ("base system" as well as all their packages/ports).  Here
are references for my statements:

http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2013/02/07/11175.html
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/2013-February/129381.html
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2012-December/017701.html

As for "licensing concerns" with DFBSD and gcc, see these (comments are
worth reading here too):

http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2012/10/02/10481.html
http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2007/12/09/2557.html

The DFBSD license:

http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/developer/DragonFly_BSD_License/

If another BSD can play nice with a ""conflicting"" (note excessive use
of quotes) license, then why can't FreeBSD?  Who within the Project is
calling these shots?  Licensing zealotism benefits no user, but I can
see it benefiting certain companies whose commercial products are
reliant on FreeBSD.  So out with it already.

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick   j...@koitsu.org |
| UNIX Systems Administratorhttp://jdc.koitsu.org/ |
| Mountain View, CA, US|
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jung-uk Kim]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2013-02-19 14:31:02 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 14:15, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
>> What do we go from here?  I don't know.  One thing I know for
>> sure is we cannot support every possible build/runtime
>> environment.
>> 
>> Feel free to suggest your ideas and thoughts.
> Well, support for "every possible" combination is, of course, a
> toll order, but support for the base cc/c++ is a reasonable
> expectation, in my opinion...

Actually, I tried very hard to build sane LO with gcc 4.2 but it
wasn't fruitful.  Eventually, I gave up on adding kludges after
kludges because LO is moving away from pre-C++11 compilers anyway. :-(

> And if there is a *good* reason to reject the base compiler, I'd
> expect such good reason to be documented -- preferably with
> bug-reports filed against either the FreeBSD and its toolchain or
> against the LibreOffice code. Or both...

I believe there were plenty PRs already.

Jung-uk Kim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRI9ZdAAoJECXpabHZMqHOetMH+gMVJvAdp9x8jSzqvZQoaw28
fXoyNunlPTMq5U1sBzL1ZURm1nPwSutlAp5dccd4oRWQUXZ5uf09vNP8hI02cXz6
xteVQXtPEYYbkk6ySlpUfCl/Xostr1vkzT1a52KwGK8VHZsV41SXZEEylbBmTRfx
ikoSpwQGBo8M6IpdrI29cfUWriajMSqXGYqNMFsloGj7kJVY/WKSe1OGraPtQMwR
Y61255VJ83tpYo7a0HGSAKEOXCGLNg8cvXNG3F7bz/rP9eikbIvx8CYYWFPQ8IrO
gB7l1Nz4XL0Z5J9jUi/QZ+dl/gM/OthaKH05WkTimmJJvlBfxphWkrELgJUwmPM=
=hTpo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 14:15, Jung-uk Kim wrote:

What do we go from here?  I don't know.  One thing I know for sure is
we cannot support every possible build/runtime environment.

Feel free to suggest your ideas and thoughts.
Well, support for "every possible" combination is, of course, a toll order, but 
support for the base cc/c++ is a reasonable expectation, in my opinion...


And if there is a *good* reason to reject the base compiler, I'd expect such 
good reason to be documented -- preferably with bug-reports filed against either 
the FreeBSD and its toolchain or against the LibreOffice code. Or both...


On 19.02.2013 14:21, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:

There are damn good reasons all my systems have
WITHOUT_CLANG=true in src.conf.
Actually, clang, whatever faults you may have seen in it, would've produced a 
working libreoffice build. But it is not the cc/c++ on 9.1 and 8.3...


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jung-uk Kim]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2013-02-19 12:23:07 -0500, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires
> gcc 4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we _have_
> that.

The short answer is we cannot support gcc 4.6+ unless we have a
dedicated *ports* compiler.

Okay, it seems to be a FAQ now and I'll try to explain as much as I
can.  If you have binaries compiled with g++ from ports tree, those
binaries should not be linked with binaries that are compiled with the
base compiler because they pull in different libstdc++ and friends and
they have different ABIs.  Also, some C++ libraries are very
"sensitive" to standard C++ libraries, e.g., Boost.  On top of that,
UNO C++ bridge is really tightly coupled with C++ runtime. [1]
Some libraries come with configuration headers and they are usually
coupled with *build* environment, not *runtime* environment.  So on
and so forth.  You see, that's why we had numerous build failure
reports for LibreOffice in C++ unit tests. [2]

Traditionally, OpenOffice.org builds everything from bundled libraries
and headers so that it is almost self-contained.  For example, STLport
is used as a C++ STL library by default.  This model makes perfect
sense for a stand-alone downloadable package because the build
environment may be very different from runtime environment.  LO has
kinda opposite philosophy, i.e., modular is better.  This model works
well if users are using prebuilt packages, i.e., Linux distros. [3]

What do we go from here?  I don't know.  One thing I know for sure is
we cannot support every possible build/runtime environment.

Feel free to suggest your ideas and thoughts.

Jung-uk Kim

1.  http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Uno

2.  Most of them are actually legit but I gave up on explaining why
and turned them off by default.  If you had build failure before, now
you may experience runtime failures instead, sorry.

3.  We may go back to monolithic build model, perhaps.  Not sure.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRI883AAoJECXpabHZMqHO+6gH/2uvg/KTlsHKuxGG1XGPjJct
icKy/nsCJK9XkkNaA3O7Zkpiddb1y2TNf9WW+/NmttfsnZ2aMos1jBnfIBr9l+ny
Gw8V09JXOtUj1Ew3QZRF0efXz0sB7C37jEEeJWgF6IB4spq+BLAriCKShsa8bh+p
PTwbE+ooib5Pzyf9NWIHzATiykeC1pSHz+3lnRhpNv9TFawcHsGyOfJRmr37eefO
jodUWXzbJivCMFteWBaZwUHJkWVfMq4h+sdUyui0dP+T1EULQPpafNNkFkPcHthA
dZzFfYGKgUjqn7PfO4B8wK5wqb/mO1rxgQ7NPQMla30PCN6iy9mNCFnMaR/nrzw=
=PgIy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Ian Lepore]

On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 13:54 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> > Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.
> Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in
> mind? 

Versions of gcc after the 4.2.1 version we use are licensed under GPLv3.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand all the fine details of why
GPLv3 is bad for the freebsd project, but I accept the analysis and
decisions the project made on that subject some time ago.  

As you might imagine, switching to a new compiler isn't something you
decide to do this afternoon and finish up tomorrow with a big checkin.
It takes many months of testing and iteratively fixing bugs... bugs
found in the new compiler, and bugs the new compiler exposes in the
existing source base.

I think we've been able to cherry-pick a few specific fixes from gcc
upstream that weren't encumbered by GPLv3, but for the most part I think
nobody is actively maintaining the GPLv2 code anymore.

-- Ian


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Chris Rees]

Somehow attribution has been screwed here-- I will perhaps blame the
appalling Android Gmail app that I used to reply to an earlier
message.

On 19 February 2013 18:54, Mikhail T.  wrote:

> These were, indeed, complaints, but not about the port "not working after I 
> broke it". My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box, the 
> office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- comments 
> in the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with anyone, for 
> example. It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze the failures... I 
> don't think, such "going with the flow" is responsible and am afraid, the 
> inglorious days of building a special compiler just for the office will 
> return...

I'm sorry that you feel that the maintainers of Libreoffice have taken
an easy route; you can certainly show them how easy it is to do by
providing some patches/fixes, or working with upstream.  I don't see
how anyone on freebsd-stable@ will either be interested or
knowledgeable in Libreoffice internals.

> Maybe, it is just an omission -- and the particular shortcomings of the base 
> compiler (and/or the rest of the toolchain) are already known and documented 
> somewhere else?
>
> Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.
>
> Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in mind?

GPLv3.

>> Maintainers of large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in 
>> supporting
>> LibreOffice's own Native_Build page makes no mention of a required compiler 
>> version. Unless a compiler is documented to not support a required feature, 
>> it is supposed to work. Thus, filing a bug-report with LibreOffice could've 
>> been fruitful -- if it is the code, rather than the toolchain, that are at 
>> fault...
>
>> a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer versions.
>
> So, it is your conclusion too, that our base compiler is "buggy" -- and that 
> little can be done about it.

That is why we're replacing it with LLVM/Clang.

> Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the compilers 
> shipped as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating system's most recent 
> stable versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy? Not just old -- and thus 
> unable to process more modern language-standards/features, but buggy -- 
> processing those features incorrectly? There is certainly nothing in our 
> errata about it...

It is no secret that our base compiler is old.  What do you think
happens in newer versions, if not added features and bugfixes?

> On 19.02.2013 13:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> .. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the
>> compiler that is known to work with it, and move on.
>
>
> Such people would, perhaps, be even better served by an RPM-based system, 
> don't you think? But I don't think so -- the amount of OPTIONS in the port is 
> large, and a lot of people are likely to build their own. Not because they 
> like  it, but because they want a PostgreSQL driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) 
> interface or...

Irrelevant.  You choosing to compile with a different compiler adds no
value and can't be compared with a different interface.

Please fix it yourself, or talk to upstream.

Chris
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 13:19, Ian Lepore wrote:

All strike me as being "complaints," but if that seems like a
mis-characterization to you, then I apologize.
These were, indeed, complaints, but not about the port "not working after I 
broke it". My complaint is that, though the port "works" out of the box, the 
office@ maintainers have given up on the base compiler too easily -- comments in 
the makefile make no mention of any bug-reports filed with anyone, for example. 
It sure seems, no attempts were made to analyze the failures... I don't think, 
such "going with the flow" is responsible and am afraid, the inglorious days of 
building a special compiler just for the office will return...


Maybe, it is just an omission -- and the particular shortcomings of the base 
compiler (and/or the rest of the toolchain) are already known and documented 
somewhere else?

Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.

Licensing? Could you elaborate, which aspect of licensing you have in mind?

Maintainers of large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in 
supporting
LibreOffice's own Native_Build page 
 makes no mention 
of a required compiler version. Unless a compiler is documented to not support a 
required feature, it is supposed to work. Thus, filing a bug-report with 
LibreOffice could've been fruitful -- if it is the code, rather than the 
toolchain, that are at fault...

a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer versions.
So, it is your conclusion too, that our base compiler is "buggy" -- and that 
little can be done about it.


Am I really the only one here disturbed by the fact, that the compilers shipped 
as cc(1) and/or c++(1) in our favorite operating system's most recent stable 
versions (9.1 and 8.3) are considered buggy? Not just old -- and thus unable to 
process more modern language-standards/features, but buggy -- processing those 
features incorrectly? There is certainly nothing in our errata 
 about it...


On 19.02.2013 13:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:

.. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the
compiler that is known to work with it, and move on.


Such people would, perhaps, be even better served by an RPM-based system, don't 
you think? But I don't think so -- the amount of OPTIONS in the port is large, 
and a lot of people are likely to build their own. Not because they like  it, 
but because they want a PostgreSQL driver or KDE4 (or GTK3) interface or...


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Ian Lepore]

On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 13:03 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 12:23, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks
> > things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers.
> Well, yes, this is, what I wanted to find out -- which case is it. There was 
> a 
> point, when we had a special compiler-port just for OpenOffice.org:
> 
> http://www.freshports.org/lang/gcc-ooo
> 
> That port was building gcc-3.4.1, which was NOT "too old" for the office only 
> a 
> few years ago (when gcc-4.2.1 already existed).
> 
> I'd love to see a comment from people, who /know/ what is going on. Then we 
> may 
> be able to either patch-up the base compiler, or the office, code or both. 
> And 
> let the healing begin[TM].
> 
> I'm afraid, though, the compiler-people are too cool to use an office suit -- 
> finding vi (and, perhaps, TeX) sufficient for their documents, while the 
> office@ 
> maintainers prefer the easy way of just adding the newer compiler to the 
> requirements. Getting these two distinct groups to meet in one thread was the 
> point of this topic...
> 
> On 19.02.2013 12:35, Ian Lepore wrote:
> >> In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc
> >> >4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we_have_  that.
> > It has been.  The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc
> > 4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically
> > taking steps to make it not-work.
> Ian, contrary to your accusation, I never complained that the port does not 
> work. Moreover, to prevent that suspicion from entering sincere minds, I 
> explicitly said: "I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to 
> use gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to." Did you not see that sentence, or do 
> deliberately misrepresent my original post?
> 
> -mi

Comments such as "compiler people are too cool..." as well as things
such as

> Upstream gcc? They may not be very interested, indeed, but it is
> FreeBSD, that 
> delivered this compiler to me -- in the most recent stable version of
> the OS. 
> 
and
> 
> But I agree, that it is insane, that the base compiler can not compile
> one of 
> the most popular open-source application-suits...

All strike me as being "complaints," but if that seems like a
mis-characterization to you, then I apologize.

Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.  Maintainers of
large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in supporting
a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer
versions.  The reasonable solution is to use a newer compiler to compile
newer ports, and put ongoing maintenance efforts into solidifying the
replacement compiler rather than propping up the buggy old one.

-- Ian


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Adrian Chadd]

.. I think the compiler people just use the port as compiled with the
compiler that is known to work with it, and move on. :-)

I re-read your original post. It's likely some queer corner case C++
or C++ library bug as shipped with the base system.


Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Adrian Chadd]

On 19 February 2013 09:35, Ian Lepore  wrote:

> It has been.  The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc
> 4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically
> taking steps to make it not-work.

Hence my reply. :-)

OP - "don't do that." The base compiler is for the base system, not
for everything.


Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 12:23, Adrian Chadd wrote:

I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks
things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers.
Well, yes, this is, what I wanted to find out -- which case is it. There was a 
point, when we had a special compiler-port just for OpenOffice.org:


   http://www.freshports.org/lang/gcc-ooo

That port was building gcc-3.4.1, which was NOT "too old" for the office only a 
few years ago (when gcc-4.2.1 already existed).


I'd love to see a comment from people, who /know/ what is going on. Then we may 
be able to either patch-up the base compiler, or the office, code or both. And 
let the healing begin[TM].


I'm afraid, though, the compiler-people are too cool to use an office suit -- 
finding vi (and, perhaps, TeX) sufficient for their documents, while the office@ 
maintainers prefer the easy way of just adding the newer compiler to the 
requirements. Getting these two distinct groups to meet in one thread was the 
point of this topic...


On 19.02.2013 12:35, Ian Lepore wrote:

In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc
>4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we_have_  that.

It has been.  The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc
4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically
taking steps to make it not-work.
Ian, contrary to your accusation, I never complained that the port does not 
work. Moreover, to prevent that suspicion from entering sincere minds, I 
explicitly said: "I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to 
use gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to." Did you not see that sentence, or do 
deliberately misrepresent my original post?


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Jakub Lach]

Actually libreoffice builds with base clang and gcc47 from ports.

I don't know about status of base gcc compiler.



--
View this message in context: 
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Why-can-t-gcc-4-2-1-build-usable-libreoffice-tp5786977p5788485.html
Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Ian Lepore]

On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 09:23 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The base compiler is supposed to compile base and bootstrap whatever
> else you need to compile other software.
> 
> It's not supposed to be continuously updated to new, major versions. :-)
> 
> I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks
> things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers.
> They could've made their code compile on older compilers.. they just
> haven't bothered.
> 
> In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc
> 4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we _have_ that.

It has been.  The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc
4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically
taking steps to make it not-work.

-- Ian


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Adrian Chadd]

Hi,

The base compiler is supposed to compile base and bootstrap whatever
else you need to compile other software.

It's not supposed to be continuously updated to new, major versions. :-)

I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks
things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers.
They could've made their code compile on older compilers.. they just
haven't bothered.

In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc
4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we _have_ that.


Adrian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

On 19.02.2013 09:45, Chris Rees wrote:
>> a. The code is buggy.
>> b. The compiler is buggy.
>> c.Both of the above.
>>My question was, which is it?
>
> My answer is that it is almost certainly (b).

Are there identified, known problems with the version? From what little I've 
heard, our cc had some bug-fixes merged-in from newer versions. For example, 
graphics/vigra now compiles fine with the stock cc in 9.1, whereas it used to 
need a newer one.


Maybe, there are already fixes available for whatever is needed for the office 
to build properly as well? The older version may be allowed to miss some 
optimization opportunities or be less descriptive in warnings, but it must 
produce valid binaries from valid code [Captain Obvious hat off]


> You are welcome to ask upstream about it, but I doubt they would show
> much interest in such an old compiler.

Upstream gcc? They may not be very interested, indeed, but it is FreeBSD, that 
delivered this compiler to me -- in the most recent stable version of the OS. 
This is why I'm asking stable@'s opinion on the matter...


We aren't really so bad, BTW -- Red Hat Enterprise 5.7 (the latest in their 5.x 
line) still has cc, that identifes itself as:


   gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-51)


I think it's insanity that we  still use this version for ports by

> default, but never mind.

I find it perfectly reasonable, that ports use the base cc and c++ by default. 
But I agree, that it is insane, that the base compiler can not compile one of 
the most popular open-source application-suits...


   -mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

18.02.2013 15:26, Chris Rees ???(??):
> I'm sure you understand that our compiler in base is rather elderly,
> and that a project as insanely huge as Libreoffice is going to be
> highly sensitive to minute changes.
No, Chris... I do not understand this wonderfully PR-esque response.
See, my understanding always was, the only possible reasons for a
compiler to produce a non-starting executable are:

 1. The code is buggy.
 2. The compiler is buggy.
 3. Both of the above.

My question was, which is it?

19.02.2013 00:35, Kevin Oberman ???(??):
> Just for the record, is find that it works fine for me with gcc-4.6.
> 9.1-STABLE on i386 system. Building it with the default compiler
> results in a successful build, but the program would simply exit after
> a few seconds with no error. The exist status was 0. No messages. When
> I built with 4.6, it builds and runs fine
Yes, 4.6 is supposed to work and is supported by the office@ team. My
question was about 4.2.1, which happens to be the base cc/c++ in 8.x and
in 9.x as well, if world was built WITHOUT_CLANG. I too observe the
4.2.1-compiled office die at start-up -- the splash screen starts nicely
and exits after kicking off the actual soffice.bin which segfaults.

-mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Chris Rees]

On 19 Feb 2013 14:23, "Mikhail T."  wrote:
>
> 18.02.2013 15:26, Chris Rees написав(ла):
>>
>> I'm sure you understand that our compiler in base is rather elderly,
>> and that a project as insanely huge as Libreoffice is going to be
>> highly sensitive to minute changes.
>
> No, Chris... I do not understand this wonderfully PR-esque response. See,
my understanding always was, the only possible reasons for a compiler to
produce a non-starting executable are:
> The code is buggy.
> The compiler is buggy.
> Both of the above.
> My question was, which is it?

My answer is that it is almost certainly (b).

You are welcome to ask upstream about it, but I doubt they would show much
interest in such an old compiler.

I think it's insanity that we still use this version for ports by default,
but never mind.

Chris
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Kevin Oberman]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Chris Rees  wrote:
> On 14 February 2013 13:57, Mikhail T.  wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> I just finished building editors/libreoffice with gcc-4.2.1 -- had to
>> edit the port's Makefile to prevent it from picking a different
>> compiler. Everything built and installed, but libreoffice dies on
>> start-up (right after flashing the splash-window):
>>
>> (gdb) where
>> #0  0x00080596c1aa in cppu::__getTypeEntries ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #1  0x00080596c333 in cppu::__queryDeepNoXInterface ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #2  0x00080596d4a2 in cppu::WeakImplHelper_query ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #3  0x0008116f2b03 in
>> 
>> cppu::WeakImplHelper1::queryInterface
>> ()
>>from /opt/lib/libreoffice/ure/lib/bootstrap.uno.so
>> #4  0x000805970347 in
>> cppu::OInterfaceContainerHelper::disposeAndClear ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #5  0x0008059705b2 in
>> cppu::OMultiTypeInterfaceContainerHelper::disposeAndClear ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #6  0x00080593309f in cppu::OComponentHelper::dispose ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #7  0x000805963d00 in cppu::OFactoryComponentHelper::dispose ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #8  0x0008116ec296 in stoc_smgr::OServiceManager::disposing ()
>> from /opt/lib/libreoffice/ure/lib/bootstrap.uno.so
>> #9  0x00080596af05 in cppu::WeakComponentImplHelperBase::dispose ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #10 0x0008116e6244 in stoc_smgr::ORegistryServiceManager::dispose ()
>>from /opt/lib/libreoffice/ure/lib/bootstrap.uno.so
>> #11 0x00080596a573 in cppu::WeakComponentImplHelperBase::release ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #12 0x0008059482f6 in (anonymous namespace)::createTypeRegistry ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #13 0x0008059487bf in
>> cppu::defaultBootstrap_InitialComponentContext ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #14 0x000805948918 in
>> cppu::defaultBootstrap_InitialComponentContext ()
>>from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
>> #15 0x00080212f883 in
>> desktop::Desktop::InitApplicationServiceManager ()
>>from /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libmergedlo.so
>> #16 0x00080211f362 in desktop::Desktop::Init () from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libmergedlo.so
>> #17 0x000807622113 in InitVCL () from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libvcllo.so
>> #18 0x000807623151 in ImplSVMain () from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libvcllo.so
>> #19 0x0008076232d5 in SVMain () from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libvcllo.so
>> #20 0x00080214942e in soffice_main () from
>> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libmergedlo.so
>> #21 0x00400773 in main ()
>>
>> I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to use
>> gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to. But I'd like to know, what is wrong with the
>> compiler shipped by FreeBSD-9.1 (and the only one, if WITHOUT_CLANG is
>> defined), that prevents building a healthy libreoffice?
>>
>> Is there a bug fixed in gcc-4.6? Or is it some (incorrect) assumption
>> made by libreoffice code? Thank you,
>
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Libreoffice and openoffice have traditionally recommended that one use
> binary packages instead of building it from scratch.
>
> I'm sure you understand that our compiler in base is rather elderly,
> and that a project as insanely huge as Libreoffice is going to be
> highly sensitive to minute changes.  As a consequence, some very
> narrow criteria are chosen to make maintenance of the port possible.
>
> You are welcome to try with gcc-4.6, but the last I heard it will only
> build with clang.  Your mileage may vary, please let us know of
> success stories!

Just for the record, is find that it works fine for me with gcc-4.6.
9.1-STABLE on i386 system. Building it with the default compiler
results in a successful build, but the program would simply exit after
a few seconds with no error. The exist status was 0. No messages. When
I built with 4.6, it builds and runs fine, at least for the things
I've tried. (4.6 invoked by setting WITH_GCC.)
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network En

Re: Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Chris Rees]

On 14 February 2013 13:57, Mikhail T.  wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I just finished building editors/libreoffice with gcc-4.2.1 -- had to
> edit the port's Makefile to prevent it from picking a different
> compiler. Everything built and installed, but libreoffice dies on
> start-up (right after flashing the splash-window):
>
> (gdb) where
> #0  0x00080596c1aa in cppu::__getTypeEntries ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #1  0x00080596c333 in cppu::__queryDeepNoXInterface ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #2  0x00080596d4a2 in cppu::WeakImplHelper_query ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #3  0x0008116f2b03 in
> 
> cppu::WeakImplHelper1::queryInterface
> ()
>from /opt/lib/libreoffice/ure/lib/bootstrap.uno.so
> #4  0x000805970347 in
> cppu::OInterfaceContainerHelper::disposeAndClear ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #5  0x0008059705b2 in
> cppu::OMultiTypeInterfaceContainerHelper::disposeAndClear ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #6  0x00080593309f in cppu::OComponentHelper::dispose ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #7  0x000805963d00 in cppu::OFactoryComponentHelper::dispose ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #8  0x0008116ec296 in stoc_smgr::OServiceManager::disposing ()
> from /opt/lib/libreoffice/ure/lib/bootstrap.uno.so
> #9  0x00080596af05 in cppu::WeakComponentImplHelperBase::dispose ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #10 0x0008116e6244 in stoc_smgr::ORegistryServiceManager::dispose ()
>from /opt/lib/libreoffice/ure/lib/bootstrap.uno.so
> #11 0x00080596a573 in cppu::WeakComponentImplHelperBase::release ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #12 0x0008059482f6 in (anonymous namespace)::createTypeRegistry ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #13 0x0008059487bf in
> cppu::defaultBootstrap_InitialComponentContext ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #14 0x000805948918 in
> cppu::defaultBootstrap_InitialComponentContext ()
>from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
> #15 0x00080212f883 in
> desktop::Desktop::InitApplicationServiceManager ()
>from /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libmergedlo.so
> #16 0x00080211f362 in desktop::Desktop::Init () from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libmergedlo.so
> #17 0x000807622113 in InitVCL () from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libvcllo.so
> #18 0x000807623151 in ImplSVMain () from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libvcllo.so
> #19 0x0008076232d5 in SVMain () from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libvcllo.so
> #20 0x00080214942e in soffice_main () from
> /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libmergedlo.so
> #21 0x00400773 in main ()
>
> I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to use
> gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to. But I'd like to know, what is wrong with the
> compiler shipped by FreeBSD-9.1 (and the only one, if WITHOUT_CLANG is
> defined), that prevents building a healthy libreoffice?
>
> Is there a bug fixed in gcc-4.6? Or is it some (incorrect) assumption
> made by libreoffice code? Thank you,

Hi Mikhail,

Libreoffice and openoffice have traditionally recommended that one use
binary packages instead of building it from scratch.

I'm sure you understand that our compiler in base is rather elderly,
and that a project as insanely huge as Libreoffice is going to be
highly sensitive to minute changes.  As a consequence, some very
narrow criteria are chosen to make maintenance of the port possible.

You are welcome to try with gcc-4.6, but the last I heard it will only
build with clang.  Your mileage may vary, please let us know of
success stories!

Chris
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Mikhail T.]

Hello!

I just finished building editors/libreoffice with gcc-4.2.1 -- had to
edit the port's Makefile to prevent it from picking a different
compiler. Everything built and installed, but libreoffice dies on
start-up (right after flashing the splash-window):

(gdb) where
#0  0x00080596c1aa in cppu::__getTypeEntries ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#1  0x00080596c333 in cppu::__queryDeepNoXInterface ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#2  0x00080596d4a2 in cppu::WeakImplHelper_query ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#3  0x0008116f2b03 in
cppu::WeakImplHelper1::queryInterface
()
   from /opt/lib/libreoffice/ure/lib/bootstrap.uno.so
#4  0x000805970347 in
cppu::OInterfaceContainerHelper::disposeAndClear ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#5  0x0008059705b2 in
cppu::OMultiTypeInterfaceContainerHelper::disposeAndClear ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#6  0x00080593309f in cppu::OComponentHelper::dispose ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#7  0x000805963d00 in cppu::OFactoryComponentHelper::dispose ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#8  0x0008116ec296 in stoc_smgr::OServiceManager::disposing ()
from /opt/lib/libreoffice/ure/lib/bootstrap.uno.so
#9  0x00080596af05 in cppu::WeakComponentImplHelperBase::dispose ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#10 0x0008116e6244 in stoc_smgr::ORegistryServiceManager::dispose ()
   from /opt/lib/libreoffice/ure/lib/bootstrap.uno.so
#11 0x00080596a573 in cppu::WeakComponentImplHelperBase::release ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#12 0x0008059482f6 in (anonymous namespace)::createTypeRegistry ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#13 0x0008059487bf in
cppu::defaultBootstrap_InitialComponentContext ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#14 0x000805948918 in
cppu::defaultBootstrap_InitialComponentContext ()
   from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/../ure-link/lib/libuno_cppuhelpergcc3.so.3
#15 0x00080212f883 in
desktop::Desktop::InitApplicationServiceManager ()
   from /opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libmergedlo.so
#16 0x00080211f362 in desktop::Desktop::Init () from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libmergedlo.so
#17 0x000807622113 in InitVCL () from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libvcllo.so
#18 0x000807623151 in ImplSVMain () from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libvcllo.so
#19 0x0008076232d5 in SVMain () from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libvcllo.so
#20 0x00080214942e in soffice_main () from
/opt/lib/libreoffice/program/libmergedlo.so
#21 0x00400773 in main ()

I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to use
gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to. But I'd like to know, what is wrong with the
compiler shipped by FreeBSD-9.1 (and the only one, if WITHOUT_CLANG is
defined), that prevents building a healthy libreoffice?

Is there a bug fixed in gcc-4.6? Or is it some (incorrect) assumption
made by libreoffice code? Thank you,

-mi

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"