Re: disappointing build problems with gcc 3.2.2 and 3.3 on i686-pc-linux-gnu :(

[John Sincock <jss at au dot mensa dot org>]

Hi Phil,

thanks for your response

On Sunday 18 May 2003 12:17 pm, you wrote:
> > i?86-*-linux*
> > You will need binutils 2.9.1.0.15 or newer for exception handling to
> > work.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I hope that binutils bit doesnt apply to my system.
> You have 2.11.  2.11 is newer than 2.9.  You should be fine there.

Ah thanks, sorry, i read the 2.9.1 as 2.91, so it thought my 2.11 
might be out of date.

> >  gcc-3.2.2]$ gcc -v: Reading specs from
> > /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/3.2.2/specs
> > Configured with: ./configure
> > Thread model: posix
> > gcc version 3.2.2
>
> Reread the install instructions, where we strongly recommend building in
> a different directory than the source dir.

I have been building in different dir than source dir. That snippet was from
someone elses build... I pasted in that section to show that someone 
else with mandrake 8.2 has somehow managed to compile 3.2.2. Sorry 
re confusion there.

> > That report contradicts the statement from
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html which says glibc 2.2.5 is
> > required for gcc 3.2.1 or greater.
> You need it for C++ at the very least.

This confuses me a bit.. :(

I did read:  http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#*-*-linux-gnu
Where it says:
>Versions of libstdc++-v3 starting with 3.2.1 require bugfixes present in 
>glibc 2.2.5 and later. 
>More information is available in the libstdc++-v3 documentation

BUT!!! If you look at the list of successful builds at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/buildstat.html
There are a variety of successful builds with glibc 2.2.4
The test reports also show that they have built g++, and it
has passed almost all tests, with only a few unexpected failures.

eg these builds of 3.2.2 were ok
-------------------------------------------------------------------
It took a total of 11hours start to finish to build this on a 
intel233mmx machine. 
gcc-3.2.2]$ ./config.guess: i586-pc-linux-gnu
 gcc-3.2.2]$ gcc -v: Reading specs from 
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnu/3.2.2/specs
Configured with: ./configure 
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.2.2
/etc/issue: Mandrake Linux release 8.2 (Bluebird) for i586
Kernel 2.4.18-6mdk on an i586
uname -a: Linux localhost.localdomain 2.4.18-6mdk #1 Fri Mar 15 
02:59:08 CET 2002 i586 unknown
gcc-3.2.2]$ rpm -q glibc: glibc-2.2.4-26.2mdk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...Reading specs from    
/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.2.2/specs
Configured with: ./configure
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.2.2
3. RedHat 8.0 
4. uname -a 
Linux 2.4.18-14 #1 Wed Sep 4 13:35:50 EDT 2002 i686
i686 i386 GNU/Linux
5. rpm -q glibc
glibc-2.2.93-5
--------------------------------------------------------------------

And there were quite a few others.  I havent found any successful 
builds with the exact same version of glibc as me though - which 
is glibc-2.2.4-25mdk

I think I am about to give up trying to compile a new gcc for now. 
Though i will have another try sometime soon, when i have upgraded 
my glibc to 2.2.5 or so. I dont think i have enough enthusiasm to do 
that this weekend.

I think ive found a few 3.2 rpms, which should install on my system as 
well, so I may just install them next weekend, and then have another go 
at compiing 3.3 with that, just to see how i go.

Arrrghhh defeated by a simple compile of gcc!! Nothing else, in gigabytes
of software compiled, has managed to humiliate me to this extent!!

Enlightenment 0.17 has probably come close... but at least i can blame 
a failure to compile that mess on their demented software.... with gcc,
i think i will have to assume that I have messed up my system in some 
way, or my different versions of gcc are getting in each others way,
or something.

Oh well, 

and thanks again,

John