On February 22, 2017 9:42:58 PM GMT+02:00, Efraim Flashner 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 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 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.