Build Failure for gcc-4.3-20071109

[Tom Browder]

I have been unable to build recent gcc versions on my i386 (AMD 64x2)
running Fedora 7 although I have no problems building them on other,
similar hosts running F7 and older Fedora releases and on both Intel
and AMD machines.

I have suspected my environment because I have noticed for the first
time in years of problem-free building that librt is required and I
have another librt ahead of the "normal" one (but that situation also
exists on other hosts which causes no problems).  Thus I have set
LD_LIBRARY_PATH to /usr/local/lib:/usr/lib so the other librt is not
even seen.

Attached is a log of my build attempt (and the config.log).

It looks to me as if libiberty is getting compiled and tested Ok, but,
for some reason, make reports an error which then prevents a good
build completion.

Can anyone tell what is happening or suggest the next step?

Thanks.

-Tom

Tom Browder
Niceville, Florida
USA


compile_gcc-4.3-20071109.log.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data


config.log.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data

Re: Build Failure for gcc-4.3-20071109

[Tom Browder]

On Nov 15, 2007 6:24 PM, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Browder wrote:
> > Attached is a log of my build attempt (and the config.log).
...
> These lines in the output are suspect:
> /bin/sh: /usr/bin/true: Success
> I don't have a /usr/bin/true on my F7 machines.  There is a /bin/true.
> The program true should just return without error and not do anything else.

Thanks, Jim, I think you've hit on it.  I'll check the hosts again
when I get back to work in the morning.

I now vaguely remember doing something with that /usr/bin/true because
of some daemon program I was fooling around with.  And it's on the two
hosts I'm having trouble with.

-Tom

Tom Browder
Niceville, Florida
USA

Re: Build Failure for gcc-4.3-20071109 [SOLVED]

[Tom Browder]

Thanks to Jim Wilson's help, I eliminated a non-standard file,
/usr/bin/true, which was interfering with gcc scripts.

Now everything is fine with gcc building.

-Tom

Tom Browder
Niceville, Florida
USA

-Wconversion bug in g++-4.3?

[Tom Browder]

Consider the following code:

f.cc ==>
void f(const unsigned char b)
{
  unsigned char c = static_cast(b & 0xff);
}
<== f.cc

Compile with g++ 4.1.2:

  $ g++-4.3-20071109 -c f.cc -Wconversion
  $

Note no warnings.

Compile with g++ 4.3-20071109:

  $ g++-4.3-20071109 -c f.cc -Wconversion
  f.cc: In function 'void f(unsigned char)':
  f.cc:3: warning: conversion to 'unsigned char' from 'int' may alter its value

Is this a legitimate warning or a bug?  If so, is there anything to be
done to eliminate the warning while retaining "-Wconversion"?

Thanks.

-Tom

Tom Browder
Niceville, Florida
USA

Re: -Wconversion bug in g++-4.3?

[Tom Browder]

On Nov 22, 2007 10:46 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/11/2007, Tom Browder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Compile with g++ 4.3-20071109:
...
> There is something odd going on, so please open a bug report and add
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to the CC list.

Done as requested, see bug #34198.

-Tom

Tom Browder
Niceville, Florida
USA

Re: -Wconversion bug in g++-4.3?

[Tom Browder]

On Nov 22, 2007 8:30 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:02:31AM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> > For this testcase:
...
> >  unsigned short c = b & 0xff;
> The type of (b & 0xff) is int.  However, the value is bounded, and must be

In  a similar case with unsigned char, adding static_cast

How to Properly Set a Tree Member Variable

[Tom Browder]

I'm trying to help Tim Josling get the old gcc cobol front end code
working with the gcc trunk
again.  I'm struggling with trying to learn usage of tree macros while
dealing with code dating from about gcc 3.2 or so.

I have the following lines of code:

 tree parm_decl;
 ...
 /* the following two lines give a gcc error: lvalue required as left
operand of assignment */
 DECL_SOURCE_FILE (parm_decl) = local_input_filename;
 DECL_SOURCE_LINE (parm_decl) = lineno;

Apparently this code worked at one time.

I know I can decode the macros and deal with the "real" variables but
what is the correct way to set the parm_decl members?

I haven't found the right spot in "GCC Compiler Collection Internals"
yet and I'm getting dizzy back tracking macro definitions.

Any hints would be appreciated.

Thanks.

-Tom

Re: How to Properly Set a Tree Member Variable

[Tom Browder]

On Jan 27, 2008 11:11 AM, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> >> /* the following two lines give a gcc error: lvalue required as left
> >> operand of assignment */
> >> DECL_SOURCE_FILE (parm_decl) = local_input_filename;
> >> DECL_SOURCE_LINE (parm_decl) = lineno;
> >> Apparently this code worked at one time.
>
> Andreas> You need to set DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION now.
>
> To expand a little -- gcc has 2 possible internal representations of
> locations.  The default changed to "mapped locations" in 4.3.  In 4.4
> we'll remove the old "expanded location" code entirely.
>
> The reason to use mapped locations is that they use less memory while
> also including information about the column number and include file
> sequence.
...
> >> what is the correct way to set the parm_decl members?
>
> Andreas> Take a look at tree.h.
>
> Also you may want to look at input.h and libcpp/include/line-map.h.
> line-map.h declares the API to creating mapped locations.
>
> Tom

Thanks, Tom and Andreas.

-Tom B.

Volunteer for a Beginner's Project: Header-Header Interdependencies

[Tom Browder]

I am interested in working on the subject project:

   Development->
 Open projects->
   projects for beginner GCC hackers->
 General code cleanliness->
   Disentangle the current web of header-header interdependencies.

My motivation: the problems a newbie faces when trying to work with a
new front end (many gcc warnings about conflicting macro definitions
and errors generated by headers with undeclared objects that need
other, unmentioned headers).

Guidance and approval are hereby solicited.

-Tom

Patch Testing Requirements

[Tom Browder]

On the GCC site (http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing) under
"Which Tests to Perform" it is stated:

"If your change is to code that is not in a front end, or is to the C
front end You must bootstrap all languages, not just C."

Does that mean Ada, Objective-C++, and treelang, too?  Or just the
languages enabled by default?

-Tom

Tom Browder
Niceville, Florida
USA

How to Avoid Executing a Front End's testsuite

[Tom Browder]

I've been working at getting Tim Josling's cobol to work as a front
end.  I've found how to tell GCC not to consider cobol an 'all'
(default) language, but I haven't figured out how to keep other cobol
targets from being activated.

For example, I do a plain

  ../gcc_src/configure
  make bootstrap

and the default languages get built. (without cobol).

Then when I do

  make check

the system tries to do execute the cobol testsuite (with errors of
course since there is no cobol compiler).

I've looked at the GCC Internals but see no help there.

How do I fix the GCC build/configure system for this situation?

Thanks.

-Tom

Tom Browder
Niceville, Florida
USA

Database for GCC

[Tom Browder]

A naive thought, perhaps:

Would there be any advantage to using a key-value embedded database
program for the voluminous maps needed for gcc optimization, etc.?

If so, consider .

I have used its predecessor, qdbm, for years and it was very fast.  TC
is faster still.

I notice many threads here about memory requirements and speed
reductions--perhaps there is some way TC could help with those
problems.

-Tom

gcc-4.4.0 Build Report: Success on Open Solaris 2008.11, x86_64

[Tom Browder]

A successful build on Open Solaris 2008.11:

$../gcc-4.4.0/config.guess
i386-pc-solaris2.11

$ gcc-4.4.0t -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.0/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
--program-suffix=-4.4.0t --disable-nls --with-gnu-as
--with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas --without-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.4.0 (GCC)

Note that the host/target is one number higher that that listed in the
installation notes, i.e., the one ther is "*solaris2.10" while this
host/target is "*solaris2.11"

I had problems later building ppl and cloog to incorporate into g++.
I have asked about this on the gcc-help mailing list.

-Tom

Tom Browder
Niceville, Florida
USA

Re: gcc-4.4.0 Build Report: Success on Open Solaris 2008.11, x86_64

[Tom Browder]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Dennis Clarke  wrote:
>
>> A successful build on Open Solaris 2008.11:
>>
>> $../gcc-4.4.0/config.guess
>> i386-pc-solaris2.11
>>
>> $ gcc-4.4.0t -v
>> Using built-in specs.
>> Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
>> Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.0/configure
>> --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
>> --program-suffix=-4.4.0t --disable-nls --with-gnu-as
>> --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas --without-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
>> Thread model: posix
>> gcc version 4.4.0 (GCC)
>>
>> Note that the host/target is one number higher that that listed in the
>> installation notes, i.e., the one ther is "*solaris2.10" while this
>> host/target is "*solaris2.11"
>>
>> I had problems later building ppl and cloog to incorporate into g++.
>> I have asked about this on the gcc-help mailing list.
>
> well done, do you have a full testsuite report ?

Thanks, Dennis, I feel lucky!

No, but I'll fire one off now before I go to bed.  It'll probably take
all night since it's a virtual host running on Linux Centos 5.3 x86_64
(Intel Core 2 duo 1.86 GHz).

-Tom

Re: gcc-4.4.0 Build Report: Success on Open Solaris 2008.11, x86_64

[Tom Browder]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Dennis Clarke  wrote:
...
>>> well done, do you have a full testsuite report ?

Well, Dennis, I have problems running the testsuite.  I think I'm
missing some of the prereqs, so it will be a while.  I'll report back
unless someone finishes first..

-Tom

Re: gcc-4.4.0 Build Report: Success on Open Solaris 2008.11, x86_64

[Tom Browder]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Dennis Clarke  wrote:
>
>> Attached is a shortened test report with the following lines removed:
>>
>
> excellent, now we have a benchmark/comparison to look at. Well done,
> excellent work.
>
> What did you use to build libgmp and mpfr ? I am curious because most
> people that try wwith Sun Studio Express or Sun Studio 12 fail pretty

I used the option of placing the latest gmp and mpfr sources in the
gcc sources directory so my sources directory looks like:

gcc-4.4.0/
   gmp -> gmp-4.3.0
   mpfr -> mpfr-2.4.1

Then I used the Sun native gcc (3.4.3) and defined CC and CXX for it
(export CC=gcc; export CXX=g++) and got the resulting gcc-4.4.0t (I
always name my gcc with the extension showing the version 'cause I
usually keep the latest two on hand).  I added the 't' for 'temporary'
until you guys get ppl and cloog sorted out.

My configure step was:

../gcc-4.4.0/configure \
  --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran  \
  --disable-multilib  \
  --program-suffix=-4.4.0t\
  --disable-nls\
  --with-gnu-as   \
  --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas\
  --without-gnu-ld  \
  --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld

build step:

  make BOOT_CFLAGS='-O' bootstrap-lean

Regards,

-Tom

Re: gcc-4.4.0 Build Report: Success on Open Solaris 2008.11, x86_64

[Tom Browder]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 18:28, Janis Johnson  wrote:
...
> The preferred way to post test results is by running the script
> $SRC/contrib/test_summary from within the build directory.  It
> produces a summary in the form of a script which will mail that
> summary to gcc-testresu...@gcc.gnu.org, where it will be archived

Is there an alternative for systems without mail access?

-Tom

Re: gcc-4.4.0 Build Report: Success on Open Solaris 2008.11, x86_64

[Tom Browder]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:39, Janis Johnson  wrote:

Thanks to Janis, Andrew, and David.

I see inside the script all you say, but it seems to be throwing up on
some ill-formed screen output from some of the tests, e.g.,

gawk: cmd. line:50: { next; }
gawk: cmd. line:50: ^ `next' used in END action
gawk: cmd. line:51: { next; }
gawk: cmd. line:51:  ^ unexpected newline or end of string

Hence my original post.

-Tom

Re: Problems with upstream versions of gmp, mpfr, and mpc [Was: Bug in Build System of gcc-4.5.1? Cannot Find libmpc.so.2]

[Tom Browder]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:43, NightStrike  wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Eric Botcazou  wrote:
>>> I'm very sceptical about "or any later version" instructions when
>>> building the gcc prerequisites.  In practice this can never be certain
>>> to work, because the upstream maintainers of these tools can change
>>> them in ways that break gcc.

I have had pretty good luck now by using the contributed script
"http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/contrib/download_prerequisites";
suggested to me by Andrew Haley.  That, IMHO, should be on the gcc
build instructions page with a link to the script and instructions to
run it in the unpacked gcc sources directory.  That should minimize
build problems for released versions.

Regards,

-Tom

Thomas. M. Browder, Jr.
Niceville, FL
USA

gcc-4.5.1 failing test: FAIL: abi_check

[Tom Browder]

I posted this earlier on gcc-help but no solutions that worked.

After a good build of gcc-4.5.1 I did 'make check' (several times
now).  I only get one failure for languages c,c++,fortran.

Portion of test results showing failure:

Running target unix
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file
for target.
Using /usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target.
Using /disk3/extsrc/gcc-4.5.1/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/config/default.exp
as tool-and-target-specific interface file.
Running /disk3/extsrc/gcc-4.5.1/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-abi/abi.exp ...
FAIL: abi_check

I searched the test results at
 and found similar failures
but I haven't found any discussion on the gcc list since 2009-10.

Any ideas?

Thanks.

-Tom

Thomas M. Browder, Jr.
Niceville, Florida
USA

gcc bugzilla upgrade

[Tom Browder]

I was working on a gcc bugzilla project upgrade under Daniel Berlin's
guidance but have not been able to contact him in a long while.

Can anyone give me a current address for him or another dev's name who
I can work with?

Thanks.

Regards,

-Tom

Thomas M. Browder, Jr.
Niceville, Florida
USA

Re: gcc bugzilla upgrade

[Tom Browder]

2010/9/7 Gerald Pfeifer :
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tom Browder wrote:
>> I was working on a gcc bugzilla project upgrade under Daniel Berlin's
>> guidance but have not been able to contact him in a long while.
...
> I thought Frédéric Buclin  (copied) is now working
> on this?  Perhaps the two of you can sync?

Okay, thanks.

-Tom

Re: gcc

[Tom Browder]

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 09:13, xie pan  wrote:
> i want a a gcc

Can you be more specific?