From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] gnu: gcc: Force Aarch64 to use /lib. Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:24:13 +0100 Message-ID: <87efyazrk2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170209184510.24200-1-efraim@flashner.co.il> <20170209184510.24200-6-efraim@flashner.co.il> <20170211170310.01bf8f47@scratchpost.org> <87efz1xiho.fsf@gnu.org> <20170214195120.GD1369@macbook42.flashner.co.il> <20170222194258.GA16022@macbook42.flashner.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52150) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckosN-0003Nd-8t for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 04:24:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckosK-0004Tv-39 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2017 04:24:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Efraim Flashner's message of "Sat, 25 Feb 2017 19:04:06 +0000") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Efraim Flashner Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Efraim Flashner skribis: > 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 Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>> > Danny Milosavljevic skribis: >>> >=20 >>> > >> + ;; 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. >>> >=20 >>> > I think we should just skip this patch. There=E2=80=99s no reason one >>> > architecture should be treated different from the others in that >>> > respect. >>> >=20 >>> > WDYT, Efraim? >>> >=20 >>> > Ludo=E2=80=99. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >> >>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. >> >>--=20 >>Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7= =9D =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 >>GPG key =3D 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 f= ailed as expected. > > Unfortunately pushing this patch would result in a full rebuild on core-u= pdates. Suggestions? Given that =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 is still in the stage where we ha= ven=E2=80=99t build everything, you could push this =E2=80=98substitute*=E2=80=99 statement now= IMO. It=E2=80=99s pretty bad that software insists on using /lib64 down the road, though. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.