Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 15:59:27 -0700 From: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Cc: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r297435 - head: still problems for stage 3 when gcc 4.2.1 is avoided (powerpc64 self-hosted build) Message-ID: <D0AEEEEF-DE31-4A60-975E-2679758FFC59@dsl-only.net> In-Reply-To: <5334F356-982F-40CA-9009-41B59AAC8665@dsl-only.net> References: <5A0ACA76-6F1D-4975-9E59-2A64BB8EFC77@dsl-only.net> <56FD9757.6040709@FreeBSD.org> <9E3033D5-F416-4B78-97C2-0A0AABF5A49E@dsl-only.net> <56FDA5F9.1090601@FreeBSD.org> <DD2A166A-28D3-4F97-A084-6109B0BA21CC@bsdimp.com> <5FDFDC6A-911B-4A77-BCEF-BBB711BFA0AC@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfoa3kth8USvLXXrzAO5KgbizN29WCj4ebb02=Nj75ZU6A@mail.gmail.com> <5334F356-982F-40CA-9009-41B59AAC8665@dsl-only.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[My testing for the likes of the below does not yet extend outside =
powerpc64 contexts.]
For the likes of self-hosted powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc/powerpc64-gcc use =
with, say, gcc49 materials as the so-called "host" compiler tools I have =
not yet found a way around using the workaround:
> # ls -l /usr/lib/libstdc++.*
> lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 17 Feb 23 00:09 /usr/lib/libstdc++.a -> =
/usr/lib/libc++.a
> lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 18 Feb 23 00:09 /usr/lib/libstdc++.so -> =
/usr/lib/libc++.so
But I appear to now have a src.conf (or a family of them) that avoids =
needing workarounds in /usr/local/include and /usr/local/lib for =
filename conflicts. This is based on CC/CXX ("HOST") and XCC/XCXX =
("CROSS") in src.conf being the likes of:
"HOST" (CC/CXX):
> CC=3Denv C_INCLUDE_PATH=3D/usr/include /usr/local/bin/gcc49 -L/usr/lib
> CXX=3Denv C_INCLUDE_PATH=3D/usr/include =
CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH=3D/usr/include/c++/v1 /usr/local/bin/g++49 -std=3Dc++11=
-nostdinc++ -L/usr/lib
and. . .
"CROSS" (XCC/XCXX):
> TO_TYPE=3Dpowerpc64
> TOOLS_TO_TYPE=3D${TO_TYPE}
> . . .
> VERSION_CONTEXT=3D11.0
> . . .
> =
XCC=3D/usr/local/bin/${TOOLS_TO_TYPE}-portbld-freebsd${VERSION_CONTEXT}-gc=
c
> =
XCXX=3D/usr/local/bin/${TOOLS_TO_TYPE}-portbld-freebsd${VERSION_CONTEXT}-g=
++
In other words: CROSS use is already handled for /usr/local/. . . just =
given the compiler paths but some special src.conf adjustments beyond =
compiler paths were needed for HOST.
So far it appears that gcc49 materials can be used in "CROSS" and/or =
powerpc64-gcc materials can be used in "HOST" via just appropriate =
compiler-path editing. (I have jumped to testing -r297514 but am still =
doing various build tests. So this aspect is subject to updates.) It =
appears to be possible to use just one compiler/tool family --but in the =
2 different ways-- instead of using a mix of 2 compiler/tool families.
Historically I've not gotten gcc variants to make a working lib32 for =
powerpc64 and I've yet to retest this: So no claims about the lib32 =
status are implied here. (The problem was code in crtbeginS that =
arbitrarily used R30 in a way that the context was not set up for and so =
crtbeginS code was dereferencing arbitrary addresses.)
=3D=3D=3D
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net
On 2016-Apr-1, at 4:35 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> wrote:
[Just a top-post showing what powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc/powerpc64-gcc has =
for the default include search places:]
powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc/powerpc64-gcc also looks in /usr/local/include =
before /usr/include : see below.
> # portmaster --list-origins
> . . .
> devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc
> . . .
>=20
> # /usr/local/bin/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0-gcc --version
> powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0-gcc (FreeBSD Ports Collection for =
powerpc64) 5.3.0
> Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There =
is NO
> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR =
PURPOSE.
>=20
> # echo '' |/usr/local/bin/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0-gcc -v -x c++ =
- -o /dev/null
> . . .
> ignoring nonexistent directory =
"/usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/../../../../includ=
e/c++/5.3.0"
> ignoring nonexistent directory =
"/usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/../../../../includ=
e/c++/5.3.0/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0"
> ignoring nonexistent directory =
"/usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/../../../../includ=
e/c++/5.3.0/backward"
> ignoring nonexistent directory =
"/usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/../../../../powerp=
c64-portbld-freebsd11.0/include"
> #include "..." search starts here:
> #include <...> search starts here:
> /usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/include
> /usr/local/include
> /usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/include-fixed
> /usr/include
> End of search list.
> . . .
=3D=3D=3D
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net
On 2016-Apr-1, at 7:25 AM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> =
wrote:
> On 01 Apr 2016, at 00:44, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Mar 31, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> =
wrote:
>>> I didn't realize the ports compiler was defaulting =
/usr/local/include
>>> into the search path now. It does not have /usr/local/lib in the
>>> default library path as far as I can tell. It's also broken for its
>>> -rpath (noted in its pkg-message). So having a default
>>> /usr/local/include path seems odd.
>>=20
>> It has for a while now. It=E2=80=99s one of the maddening =
inconsistencies that abound in this
>> area. I took a poll a while ago and there seemed to be widespread =
support for adding
>> it to the base compiler.
>=20
> This was the main reason /usr/local/include was *not* included in the
> base compiler, otherwise it would unpredictably pick up headers in
> /usr/local/include during builds. You can never know which =
conflicting
> headers a certain user has installed in /usr/local/include... :)
>=20
> That's why it shouldn't be *FIRST*, not why it shouldn't be there
> at all.
>=20
>>> Adding -isystem /usr/include to fix this is probably possible but
>>> there's a risk someone will remove it as redundant. In this case I =
wish
>>> /usr/include was first but I'm not sure what impact that would have =
on
>>> consumers expecting /usr/local/include (and /usr/local/lib) =
overrides to
>>> work, though they would need to pass a -L /usr/local/lib anyhow and
>>> would likely be passing -I /usr/local/lib too.
>>=20
>> /usr/include should be first. But it isn=E2=80=99t. That=E2=80=99s =
another inconsistency that was found
>> when we looked at /usr/local stuff. Someone recently added =
/usr/local/bin to the path,
>> if I recall correctly.
>=20
> Isn't that a bit of a bikeshed? I guess some people would just as =
well
> prefer /usr/local/include to be first, just like some people prefer
> /usr/local/bin before /usr/bin in their PATH.
>=20
> Sigh. No. /usr/local is moving into many different things in the base =
and ports. We should
> do it in a consistent way. What we have now is not consistent and =
somewhat brittle.
>=20
> In any case, if such paths are added to external compilers, we better
> make sure almost everything in buildworld uses -nostdinc, and =
specifying
> exactly the include directories we need, and no others. Cumbersome, =
but
> maybe for a good cause.
>=20
> That's the non-brittle solution here. An over-reliance on defaults =
makes it
> difficult to ensure other compilers will work, especially ones we =
don't
> tightly control the defaults for.
>=20
> Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D0AEEEEF-DE31-4A60-975E-2679758FFC59>