Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:06:26 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>, papowell@astart.com Subject: Re: GCC + FreeBSD 11.0 Stable - stat.h does not have vm_ooffset_t definition Message-ID: <20170430120626.GT1622@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <163343D9-0396-4468-B666-DD9D8AEE176B@FreeBSD.org> References: <8316fd8e-056d-32a1-1e59-414269476190@astart.com> <95c6f08e-0cf7-f0f3-8b19-29e03b3f4f96@FreeBSD.org> <39149f1c-d939-5c60-a0c3-ab76fa0f750b@astart.com> <f264ebcc-4cd4-4541-f19d-227cde74b3ba@FreeBSD.org> <fb7749f8-193a-2cdc-db8f-9ca046a0b94e@astart.com> <22bfc9eb-f037-cb1e-931f-a995e98093e2@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1704291846170.2928@anthias.pfeifer.com> <163343D9-0396-4468-B666-DD9D8AEE176B@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 07:55:24PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 29 Apr 2017, at 19:00, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > >>>>>>> I found the problem, but I do not know how to resolve this. When you > >>>>>>> install the GCC compiler from the PKG repository it appears to create a > >>>>>>> modified set of include files from the system (default?) include files > >>>>>>> (/usr/include). However, when the modified /usr/include/sys/types.h > >>>>>>> file is created, the typedef for vm_ooffset_t is modified, and there is > >>>>>>> no reference to __vm_ooffset_t that the compiler can resolve. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> < typedef __int64_t vm_ooffset_t; > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> typedef __vm_ooffset_t vm_ooffset_t; > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>> You have to rebuild lang/gcc from the ports tree to fix this problem. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2017-February/064937.html > >>>>> Does this mean that the GCC port/package needs to be updated? If so, > >>>>> should I file a PR report on this issue? > >>>>> I (temporarily) fixed this problem by hand editting the modified types.h > >>>>> file and things seem to work. > >>>> I already wrote a patch (attached). :-) > >> If the maintainer (gerald) approves. CC'd. > > > > Thanks for bringing this to my attention. > > > > Can you please help me understand why this is necessary? > > This is because gcc's fixincludes process makes copies of certain system > headers (in this case, /usr/include/sys/types.h) with slight > modifications. Then, it places the directory containing the modified > headers at the front of the include search path. So far so good. > > Now, whenever sys/types.h is updated, as happened with the vm_ooffset_t > change, the header in gcc's own preferred directory might not match the > definitions which are expected, leading to compilation errors. > > > > If the > > port/package is builts from scratch, does this trigger the problem? > > Yes, basically you need to rebuild all gcc ports from scratch, whenever > you update any system header that matches gcc's list of files it wants > to modify. > > But getting those errors in the first place can be very confusing to an > end-user. And having to rebuild all those ports might be a burden. > > As some people pointed out, simply moving away or deleting the directory > with fixed includes appears to work around the problems. So maybe the > question is if gcc really needs to modify those headers at all? > > I have looked at gcc's build system a bit, but it does not seem very > easy to disable the fixincludes step. I guess that is simply not > supported. > > So in that case, if Jung-uk's solution works, it is probably the best > way forward, and it can even be upstreamed. Jung-uk, how does your > patch handle an updated header under /usr/include which contains e.g. > new definitions, which are not in the fixed includes directory? Am I right that Jung-uk fix replaces vm_ooffset_t and vm_pindex_t with explicit int64_t and uint64_t use, as the course of action for gcc fixincludes step ? If yes, I completely disagree. The change blocks any future changes to the type that might occur in the base system, for the code compiled by gcc. End result might be as bad as mismatched ABI, in the worst case. I share the opinion that fixincludes is not only useless, but really damaging. Gcc ships workarounds for e.g. issues in X11 headers, which application depends on the presence of the corresponding headers at the gcc build time. For clean (poudriere-like) builds these fixes are never applied, so port build results are inconsistent, at least. Nobody so far explained why fixincludes is needed for the modern base headers. IMO if we have real problems in headers we ship, we must fix it in the base. With all of the above, IMO most sane way to fix problems is to rename fixincludes directory to some name which is ignored by gcc, e.g. include-fixed -> include-fixed.saved. This can be done as post-installation step in the ports.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170430120626.GT1622>