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

Sat Apr 29 03:40:14 UTC 2017

On 2017-Apr-28, at 7:15 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> wrote:

> On 2017-Apr-28, at 6:10 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-Apr-28, at 5:24 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2017-Apr-28, at 3:27 PM, Mark Millard <markmi at dsl-only.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Just FYI:
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> [Because of this I've been reverting devel/*binutils
>>>> to -r436731 each time I update the revision of
>>>> /usr/ports.]
>>>> 
>>>> 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:
>>>> 
>>>> amd64: built amd64-gcc powerpc64-gcc aarch64-gcc
>>>> powerpc64: built powerpc64-gcc
>>>> aarch64: built aarch64-gcc
>>>> (Note: aarch64 is using -mcpu=cortex-a53 explicitly.)
>>>> 
>>>> Context: head -r317015 in each case.
>>>> (WITH_LLD_IS_LD= was used on aarch64.)
>>>> (powerpc64 is system-clang/libc++ based, used
>>>> devel/*binutils)
>>>> 
>>>> 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.)
>>>> 
>>>> I also have access to armv7. (In this context
>>>> I normally use -mcpu=cortex-a7 explicitly.)
>>>> So I could try that type of host as well.
>>>> 
>>>> I do not have access to mips, mips64, riscv, sparc64
>>>> so they could be targets but not hosts in my tests:
>>>> always cross-builds.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.)
>>> 
>>> 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 "=a" problem for the clang based build:
>>> 
>>> /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i386/cpuid.h:223:3: error: invalid output constraint '=a' in asm
>>> __cpuid (__ext, __eax, __ebx, __ecx, __edx);
>>> ^
>>> /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i386/cpuid.h:165:7: note: expanded from macro '__cpuid'
>>>         : "=a" (a), "=b" (b), "=c" (c), "=d" (d)     \
>>> . . . (other such messages) . . .
>>> In file included from /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/c-family/cppspec.c/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c:554::225: error: invalid output constraint '=a' in asm
>>> . . .
>>>        : "=a" (eax), "=d" (edx)
>>>         ^
>>> . . .
>>> 
>>> So this system-clang context on powerpc64 is like -r439595
>>> reports for building devel/amd64-gcc on aarch64:
>>> 
>>> +BROKEN_aarch64=		error: invalid output constraint '=a' in asm
>>> 
>>> head/devel/amd64-gcc/Makefile only says:
>>> 
>>> BROKEN_powerpc64=	Does not build
>>> 
>>> but it is like on aarch64 --at least when system-clang
>>> compiler that is in use.
>>> 
>>> The compiler command lines were:
>>> 
>>> c++ -std=gnu++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/../include -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/usr/local/include  -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libdecnumber -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libbac
>> 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/i386/driver-i386.c
>>> 
>>> c++ -std=gnu++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/../include -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/usr/local/include  -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libdecnumber -I/usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/../libdecnumber/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/cppspec.c
>>> 
>>> 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 .
>> 
>> Based on the aarch64 context specified in the
>> original note (system version, /usr/ports versions,
>> and the like). . .
>> 
>> The following built fine:
>> 
>> ===>>> 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)
>> 
>> But devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 then conflicts with
>> devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc :
>> 
>> ===>   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
>> 
>> So to test devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 fully requires that
>> any pre-installed devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc first be
>> deleted/removed.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> So the following did not have package problems:
>> 
>> devel/aarch64-none-elf-gcc-6.3.0
>> devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc
>> 
>> But that last was given that devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492
>> had not been installed.
>> 
>> 
>> I still have the following to go on aarch64 (cortex-a53):
>> 
>> devel/powerpc64-gcc
>> devel/riscv64-gcc
>> devel/sparc64-gcc
>> devel/amd64-gcc
>> 
>> I also have armv7 (cortex-a7) attempting:
>> 
>> devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492
>> devel/amd64-gcc
> 
> The armv7 attempt at devel/amd64-gcc also got
> the "=a" problem, such as:
> 
> /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c:608:2: error: invalid output constraint '=a' in asm
>        __cpuid (0x80000002, name, ebx, ecx, edx);
>        ^
> /usr/obj/portswork/usr/ports/devel/amd64-gcc/work/gcc-6.3.0/gcc/config/i386/cpuid.h:165:7: note: expanded from macro '__cpuid'
>           : "=a" (a), "=b" (b), "=c" (c), "=d" (d)     \
>             ^
> 
> 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.)
> 
> Not that this is different from -r439595's
> report, which said for devel/amd64-gcc:
> 
> +BROKEN_armv6=		fails to package
> 
> 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.
> 
> armv7 still has devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 to go.
> 
> aarch64 is working on:
> 
> devel/powerpc64-gcc
> devel/riscv64-gcc
> devel/sparc64-gcc
> devel/amd64-gcc

The armv7 attempt at devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492 also
got the conflict with devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc :

===>   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

Note that this is different than the -r439595
report:

+BROKEN_armv6=		error: no member named 'fancy_abort' in namespace 'std::__1'; did you mean simply 'fancy_abort'?

I've no clue what caused the "fancy_abort" problem
reported in -r439595 .

Only one of:

devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc
vs.
devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492

can be installed at a time and to
install one required removal/deletion of
the other first (if it already exists).

Other than the conflict everything looks to
have worked up to trying to actually install.

I expect aarch64's attempt at devel/aarch64-gcc
to do the same sort of thing.

aarch64 is still working on:

devel/powerpc64-gcc
devel/riscv64-gcc
devel/sparc64-gcc
devel/amd64-gcc

(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.)

===
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net