Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: toolchain.eclass and gcc 4.1 snapshots

[Simon Strandman <simon.strandman@telia.com>]

R Hill skrev:
> Simon Strandman wrote:
>> It seems like toolchain.eclass does something wrong when configuring 
>> gcc 4.1 snapshots. I decided to try gcc 4.1 on my server so I created 
>> a gcc-4.1.1.20060324 ebuild and defined the SNAPSHOT variable in it 
>> (current cvs has a lot of bugfixes since the release). This is the 
>> way I've done it with gcc 4.0 and I never had any problems then. The 
>> ebuild emerges without problems but it installs files in both 
>> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1-20060324 and 
>> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1. So when I try to emerge 
>> anything it always fails with errors like this:
>>
>> configure:2239: i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe 
>> -fomit-frame-pointer -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1   conftest.c  >&5
>> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.1.1/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: 
>> cannot find -lgcc_s
>> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>>
>> Just copying over the files from one dir to the other and then 
>> symlinking it works around the problems. Any ideas?
>
> This is caused by changes to the build system in 4.1 and GCC's 
> BASE-VER not matching portage's ${PV} in snapshot builds.  Most of the 
> system directories are set up by portage during configure using ${PV} 
> as part of the dirname. (eg. 
> includedir=/usr/<lib>/gcc/<chost>/${PV}/include).  However, libdir and 
> libexecdir aren't set by portage (because they generate really strange 
> paths w/ --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs in GCC 3.3/3.4) and 
> default to /usr/<lib>/gcc/<chost>/BASE-VER/blah.  When ${PV} != 
> BASE-VER, wackiness ensues.
>
> Try this in your ebuild:
>
> src_unpack() {
>     toolchain_src_unpack
>
>     echo ${PV/_/-} > "${S}"/gcc/BASE-VER
>     echo "" > "${S}"/gcc/DATESTAMP
> }
>
> --de.
>
Thanks for the help! But now it fails with this error:

<built-in>:1: internal compiler error: in define__GNUC__, at c-cppbuiltin.c:296
Please submit a full bug report,


This has been reported in gcc bug #19372 and apperantly it has something 
to do with the version string. :(
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list