bug#67157: gcc-toolchain@4.8.5 not available on the official substitute servers

[Thomas Schwinge <thomas@schwinge.name>]

On 2024-01-18T20:39:16+0100, I wrote:
>     In file included from ../../gcc-4.8.5/gcc/cp/except.c:1008:
>     cfns.gperf: At global scope:
>     cfns.gperf:101:1: error: ‘const char* libc_name_p(const char*, unsigned int)’ redeclared inline with ‘gnu_inline’ attribute
>     cfns.gperf:26:14: note: ‘const char* libc_name_p(const char*, unsigned int)’ previously declared here
>
> If I'm understanding things right, Ricardo actually has addressed this
> issue in commit e6994d7e3f3f4a69f984c9e67df27abe1bc07c1c
> "gnu: gcc-arm-none-eabi-4.9: Fix incompatible redeclaration"
> ('gnu/packages/patches/gcc-4.9-inline.patch'), and similarly a number of
> years earlier in commit db90eb8c2bd447ab53bed80e5b0ea5105a928cdf
> "gnu: Add propeller-gcc-4" -- both not applied to the GCC 4.8 sources
> we're trying to build here.  Anyway, putting Ricardo in CC, in case
> you've got any input to this one here, too?  :-)

Actually, also years-old commit 625492ee1a5a8e515b97d4b76734584c1b420243
"gnu: gcc-4.7: Resurrect building with gcc-5.4.0" (Janneke CCed), and
also discussed in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49935>
"gcc-4.8 fails to build with recent GCC versions" (Thiago CCed), and
<https://issues.guix.gnu.org/40758>
"build failure: gcc-4.8.5 (gcc-toolchain-4.8.5)" (Christopher CCed), for
example.

In <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR80734>
"GCC 6.3.1 errors compiling GCC 4.8.5 - error: ‘const char* libc_name_p(const char*, unsigned int)’ redeclared inline with ‘gnu_inline’ attribute",
or <https://gcc.gnu.org/PR69959> "gcc-6 doesn't build gcc-5 anymore",
for example, Jakub suggested building with '-std=gnu++98' as another
option.  (Maybe that can be achieved by using a build GCC where this is
implicit?)

I suppose more instances of this issue can be found if searching more
thoroughly.  ;-)

> The latter commit's 'gnu/packages/patches/gcc-4.6-gnu-inline.patch'
> indicates that "the 3.0.3 release of gperf" may be when this started, so
> I'll try to invoke the time-machine for older than that, as a first
> (hopefully simple) try.