Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 01:19:17 -0700 From: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r439595 - in head/devel: aarch64-gcc aarch64-none-elf-gcc amd64-gcc arm-none-eabi-gcc arm-none-eabi-gcc492 mips-gcc mips64-gcc powerpc64-gcc riscv64-gcc sparc64-gcc Message-ID: <9436F464-2A4D-42A7-83E1-4425F4F23402@dsl-only.net> In-Reply-To: <BB9980F5-BC10-4C80-A680-E604D7AE93C9@dsl-only.net> References: <8E45FA57-8D2E-4159-8E02-6A5044000CC2@dsl-only.net> <B15B5A54-B48B-4BBA-BB55-8D24652833AD@dsl-only.net> <27396BB5-21BC-453A-AD14-E711C15D365F@dsl-only.net> <5EC77319-3775-4333-BD1E-B08359C354E3@dsl-only.net> <1E21DD74-6F0E-4D60-8595-95BFDEC0884B@dsl-only.net> <BB9980F5-BC10-4C80-A680-E604D7AE93C9@dsl-only.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2017-Apr-28, at 10:59 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> = wrote: > On 2017-Apr-28, at 8:40 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> = wrote: >=20 >> On 2017-Apr-28, at 7:15 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> = wrote: >>=20 >>> On 2017-Apr-28, at 6:10 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On 2017-Apr-28, at 5:24 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> On 2017-Apr-28, at 3:27 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Just FYI: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10537 may help with powerpc64-gcc >>>>>> slave ports (and powerpc64-gcc itself) when they are built on >>>>>> the type of machine that they target. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> As of devel/*binutils -r436732 and -r432733 (the update >>>>>> to 2.28) many things are broken for linking with debug >>>>>> information that were not before (for example). It turns >>>>>> out to be because of a change in return code for reporting >>>>>> issues for the cases I know about: the new return code >>>>>> stops the build (and the return code is likely appropriate >>>>>> long term as I understand). For example a formerly ignored >>>>>> debug information issue now blocks various builds when a >>>>>> (modern) binutils is involved. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> [Because of this I've been reverting devel/*binutils >>>>>> to -r436731 each time I update the revision of >>>>>> /usr/ports.] >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> As of ports head -r439263 with reverting >>>>>> devel/*binutils to -r436731 and the patch >>>>>> from D10537 I tested building the following >>>>>> earlier today as part of reviewing D10537: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> amd64: built amd64-gcc powerpc64-gcc aarch64-gcc >>>>>> powerpc64: built powerpc64-gcc >>>>>> aarch64: built aarch64-gcc >>>>>> (Note: aarch64 is using -mcpu=3Dcortex-a53 explicitly.) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Context: head -r317015 in each case. >>>>>> (WITH_LLD_IS_LD=3D was used on aarch64.) >>>>>> (powerpc64 is system-clang/libc++ based, used >>>>>> devel/*binutils) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> If the information would be useful I could try >>>>>> some other combinations under the patch and >>>>>> the older binutils for comparison. (That does >>>>>> not say when anyone might use the information.) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I also have access to armv7. (In this context >>>>>> I normally use -mcpu=3Dcortex-a7 explicitly.) >>>>>> So I could try that type of host as well. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I do not have access to mips, mips64, riscv, sparc64 >>>>>> so they could be targets but not hosts in my tests: >>>>>> always cross-builds. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I have access to powerpc but currently am not well >>>>>> set up to use it without rebuilding it as gcc 4.2.1 >>>>>> based for buildworld, not just buildkernel. (clang >>>>>> generates bad stack handling for some contexts for >>>>>> 32-bit powerpc.) >>>>>=20 >>>>> I tried building devel/amd64-gcc on a powerpc64 >>>>> head -r317015 system that was built with clang >>>>> and libc++ and has clang as its system compiler. >>>>> /usr/ports as of -r439263 but devel/*binutils as >>>>> of -r436731 (so 2.27 instead of 2.2.8). The result >>>>> was the "=3Da" problem for the clang based build: >>>>>=20 >>>>> = /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i38= 6/cpuid.h:223:3: error: invalid output constraint '=3Da' in asm >>>>> __cpuid (__ext, __eax, __ebx, __ecx, __edx); >>>>> ^ >>>>> = /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i38= 6/cpuid.h:165:7: note: expanded from macro '__cpuid' >>>>> : "=3Da" (a), "=3Db" (b), "=3Dc" (c), "=3Dd" (d) \ >>>>> . . . (other such messages) . . . >>>>> In file included from = /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/c-family/c= ppspec.c/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/co= nfig/i386/driver-i386.c:554::225: error: invalid output constraint '=3Da' = in asm >>>>> . . . >>>>> : "=3Da" (eax), "=3Dd" (edx) >>>>> ^ >>>>> . . . >>>>>=20 >>>>> So this system-clang context on powerpc64 is like -r439595 >>>>> reports for building devel/amd64-gcc on aarch64: >>>>>=20 >>>>> +BROKEN_aarch64=3D error: invalid output constraint = '=3Da' in asm >>>>>=20 >>>>> head/devel/amd64-gcc/Makefile only says: >>>>>=20 >>>>> BROKEN_powerpc64=3D Does not build >>>>>=20 >>>>> but it is like on aarch64 --at least when system-clang >>>>> compiler that is in use. >>>>>=20 >>>>> The compiler command lines were: >>>>>=20 >>>>> c++ -std=3Dgnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -O2 -pipe -B/usr/local/bin/ = -DLIBICONV_PLUG -g -fno-strict-aliasing -B/usr/local/bin/ = -DLIBICONV_PLUG -DIN_GCC -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-exceptions = -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing = -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute = -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros = -Wno-overlength-strings -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/. = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../inclu= de = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libcp= p/include -I/usr/local/include = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libde= cnumber = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libde= cnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../lib > b >> ac >>>> kt >>>>> race -B/usr/local/bin/ -DLIBICONV_PLUG -o driver-i386.o -MT = driver-i386.o -MMD -MP -MF ./.deps/driver-i386.TPo = /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i38= 6/driver-i386.c >>>>>=20 >>>>> c++ -std=3Dgnu++98 -fno-PIE -c -O2 -pipe -B/usr/local/bin/ = -DLIBICONV_PLUG -g -fno-strict-aliasing -B/usr/local/bin/ = -DLIBICONV_PLUG -DIN_GCC -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-exceptions = -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing = -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute = -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros = -Wno-overlength-strings -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -Ic-family = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/c-family= = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../inclu= de = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libcp= p/include -I/usr/local/include = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libde= cnumber = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libde= cnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber = -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6. > 3 >> .0 >>>> /g >>>>> cc/../libbacktrace -B/usr/local/bin/ -DLIBICONV_PLUG -o = c-family/cppspec.o -MT c-family/cppspec.o -MMD -MP -MF = c-family/.deps/cppspec.TPo = /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/c-family/c= ppspec.c >>>>>=20 >>>>> It will be a fairly long time before the aarch64 >>>>> context gets to this point in a devel/adm64-gcc >>>>> build, although I expect a replication of the >>>>> reported behavior for building devel/amd64-gcc . >>>>=20 >>>> Based on the aarch64 context specified in the >>>> original note (system version, /usr/ports versions, >>>> and the like). . . >>>>=20 >>>> The following built fine: >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3D=3D>>> The following actions were performed: >>>> Re-installation of aarch64-none-elf-gcc-6.3.0 >>>> Installation of devel/arm-none-eabi-binutils = (arm-none-eabi-binutils-2.27_5,1) >>>> Installation of devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc = (arm-none-eabi-gcc-6.3.0) >>>>=20 >>>> But devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 then conflicts with >>>> devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc : >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3D=3D> Registering installation for = arm-none-eabi-gcc492-4.9.2_2 >>>> Installing arm-none-eabi-gcc492-4.9.2_2... >>>> pkg-static: arm-none-eabi-gcc492-4.9.2_2 conflicts with = arm-none-eabi-gcc-6.3.0 (installs files into the same place). = Problematic file: /usr/local/bin/arm-none-eabi-c++ >>>> *** Error code 70 >>>>=20 >>>> So to test devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 fully requires that >>>> any pre-installed devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc first be >>>> deleted/removed. >>>>=20 >>>> There is every indication that absent the conflict >>>> devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 would have installed just >>>> fine and it did build to the point of installing. >>>>=20 >>>> So the following did not have package problems: >>>>=20 >>>> devel/aarch64-none-elf-gcc-6.3.0 >>>> devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc >>>>=20 >>>> But that last was given that devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 >>>> had not been installed. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> I still have the following to go on aarch64 (cortex-a53): >>>>=20 >>>> devel/powerpc64-gcc >>>> devel/riscv64-gcc >>>> devel/sparc64-gcc >>>> devel/amd64-gcc >>>>=20 >>>> I also have armv7 (cortex-a7) attempting: >>>>=20 >>>> devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 >>>> devel/amd64-gcc >>>=20 >>> The armv7 attempt at devel/amd64-gcc also got >>> the "=3Da" problem, such as: >>>=20 >>> = /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i38= 6/driver-i386.c:608:2: error: invalid output constraint '=3Da' in asm >>> __cpuid (0x80000002, name, ebx, ecx, edx); >>> ^ >>> = /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i38= 6/cpuid.h:165:7: note: expanded from macro '__cpuid' >>> : "=3Da" (a), "=3Db" (b), "=3Dc" (c), "=3Dd" (d) \ >>> ^ >>>=20 >>> So this is like what devel/powerpc64-gcc got in a >>> system-clang based context --and armv7 is again >>> based on clang so the message is from clang. (I >>> expect aarch64 to get the same thing once it >>> tries devel/amd64-gcc since -r439595 reports >>> such for aarch64.) >>>=20 >>> Not that this is different from -r439595's >>> report, which said for devel/amd64-gcc: >>>=20 >>> +BROKEN_armv6=3D fails to package >>>=20 >>> Since the compile problem would before any >>> package attempt I've no clue how -r439595 >>> got as far as package if it was using clang >>> to do the build. >>>=20 >>> armv7 still has devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 to go. >>>=20 >>> aarch64 is working on: >>>=20 >>> devel/powerpc64-gcc >>> devel/riscv64-gcc >>> devel/sparc64-gcc >>> devel/amd64-gcc >>=20 >> The armv7 attempt at devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 also >> got the conflict with devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc : >>=20 >> =3D=3D=3D> Registering installation for = arm-none-eabi-gcc492-4.9.2_2 >> Installing arm-none-eabi-gcc492-4.9.2_2... >> pkg-static: arm-none-eabi-gcc492-4.9.2_2 conflicts with = arm-none-eabi-gcc-6.3.0 (installs files into the same place). = Problematic file: /usr/local/bin/arm-none-eabi-c++ >> *** Error code 70 >>=20 >> Note that this is different than the -r439595 >> report: >>=20 >> +BROKEN_armv6=3D error: no member named 'fancy_abort' in = namespace 'std::__1'; did you mean simply 'fancy_abort'? >>=20 >> I've no clue what caused the "fancy_abort" problem >> reported in -r439595 . >>=20 >> Only one of: >>=20 >> devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc >> vs. >> devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 >>=20 >> can be installed at a time and to >> install one required removal/deletion of >> the other first (if it already exists). >>=20 >> Other than the conflict everything looks to >> have worked up to trying to actually install. >>=20 >> I expect aarch64's attempt at devel/aarch64-gcc >> to do the same sort of thing. >>=20 >> aarch64 is still working on: >>=20 >> devel/powerpc64-gcc >> devel/riscv64-gcc >> devel/sparc64-gcc >> devel/amd64-gcc >>=20 >> (It has made it to devel/sparc64 , having >> installed devel/powerpc64-gcc and >> devel/riscv64-gcc . No package failures >> but I'm using D10537's patch and I'm >> using head -r317015 and other details which >> are likely different from what -r439595 was >> based on.) >=20 > [I seem to have forgotten to list devel/mips-gcc > and devel/mips64-gcc and so will have to start > those builds on aarch64.] >=20 > The aarch64 attempt at building devel/amd64-gcc also > got the "=3Da" problem, for example: >=20 > = /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i38= 6/driver-i386.c:608:2: error: invalid output constraint '=3Da' in asm > __cpuid (0x80000002, name, ebx, ecx, edx); > ^ > = /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i38= 6/cpuid.h:165:7: note: expanded from macro '__cpuid' > : "=3Da" (a), "=3Db" (b), "=3Dc" (c), "=3Dd" (d) \ > ^ >=20 > This did match the -r439595 report for the combination. >=20 > But for every non-amd64 host that I tried that used > clang to build devel/amd64-gcc the same problem happened. > (I did no testing of gcc 4.2.1 or other compilers than > system-clang under head -r317015.) >=20 > Other than the devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 > conflict with devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc everything > else built on aarch64 just fine: >=20 > =3D=3D=3D>>> The following actions were performed: > Installation of devel/powerpc64-binutils = (powerpc64-binutils-2.27_5,1) > Installation of devel/powerpc64-gcc (powerpc64-gcc-6.3.0) > Installation of devel/riscv64-binutils = (riscv64-binutils-2.27.51.20161101) > Installation of devel/riscv64-gcc (riscv64-gcc-6.1.0) > Installation of devel/sparc64-binutils = (sparc64-binutils-2.27_5,1) > Installation of devel/sparc64-gcc (sparc64-gcc-6.3.0) > Installation of devel/amd64-binutils (amd64-binutils-2.27_5,1) >=20 > where before I'd reported: >=20 > =3D=3D=3D>>> The following actions were performed: > Re-installation of aarch64-none-elf-gcc-6.3.0 > Installation of devel/arm-none-eabi-binutils = (arm-none-eabi-binutils-2.27_5,1) > Installation of devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc = (arm-none-eabi-gcc-6.3.0) >=20 > and I'd tested building devel/aarch64-gcc on aarch64 > as part of testing the patch in D10537 earlier in the > day. >=20 > Note: This is different than the -r439595 reports > for aarch64 hosts: >=20 > devel/aarch64-gcc: > +BROKEN_aarch64=3D configure: error: cannot compute suffix = of object files: cannot compile >=20 > devel/aarch64-none-elf-gcc: > devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc: > devel/powerpc64-gcc: > devel/riscv64-gcc: > devel/sparc64-gcc: > +BROKEN_aarch64=3D fails to package >=20 > (Some of those might be from some prior install > that conflicts, like I saw for > devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492? Of course I was also > using -r436731 of devel/*binutils (2.27) because > of some known 2.28 build failures associated with > 2.28. ) As for aarch64 building/installing devel/mips-gcc and devel/mips64-gcc in my context: =3D=3D=3D>>> The following actions were performed: Installation of devel/mips-binutils (mips-binutils-2.27_5,1) Installation of devel/mips-gcc (mips-gcc-6.3.0) Installation of devel/mips64-binutils (mips64-binutils-2.27_5,1) Installation of devel/mips64-gcc (mips64-gcc-6.3.0) So no problem. This is different from -r439595 reporting for both: +BROKEN_aarch64=3D fails to package That completes a round of testing hosts: aarch64 (using -mcpu=3Dcortex-a53 ) armv6 (on a armv7 using -mcpu=3Dcortex-a7 ) powerpc64 (even this using system-clang) relative to the -r439595 reports but based on using the patch from D10537, using 2.27 of devel/*binutils and the like (-r436731 ), /usr/ports at -r439263 otherwise, all using system-clang to do the builds (head -r317015 ). Hopefully comparison/contrast will provide some useful information. =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9436F464-2A4D-42A7-83E1-4425F4F23402>