Re: werror fallout for cross-builds (was: Re: [BUILDROBOT][PATCH] Fix mmix (unused variable))

[Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw at lug-owl dot de>]

On Thu, 2014-07-24 16:30:13 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-07-22 16:40:31 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> wrote:
> > > Jan-Benedict, which host gcc version do you use when getting
> > > most targets to build with config-list.mk?  Maybe we can just
> > > set the initial version to that instead of 4.4.4.
> >
> > darkeye		gcc (Debian 4.8.1-7) 4.8.1
> > gccbuild	gcc (Debian 4.8.1-7) 4.8.1
> > pluto		gcc (Debian 4.9.1-1) 4.9.1
> > gcc20		gcc (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5
> > gcc76		gcc (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5
> > gcc110		gcc (GCC) 4.7.2 20121109 (Red Hat 4.7.2-8)
> > gcc111		gcc (GCC) 4.8.1
> > 		XL 12.1.0.0 (if I ever get that properly working...)
> 
> I tried to repeat that, for the CFarm hosts.  On gcc111 trying
> config-list.mk on the 0720 snapshot (and with mpc, mpfr and gmp
> in-tree) gives me: "configure: error: GNAT is required to build
> ada" already for aarch64-unknown-elf.  Somewhat expected, as I
> don't think many of the targets in the config-list.mk LIST have
> Ada bits ported, but maybe there are no Ada specific bits needed
> to build the GNAT compiler proper, just a host GNAT.
> 
> On gcc110 which *has* gnat, I get:
> 
> /gcc/o/aarch64-elf/./mpfr -I/home/hp/gcc/gcc/mpfr -I/opt/cfarm/mpc/include  -I../../../gcc/gcc/../libdecnumber -I../../../gcc/gcc/../libdecnumber/dpd -I../libdecnumber -I../../../gcc/gcc/../libbacktrace    -o dwarf2out.o -MT dwarf2out.o -MMD -MP -MF ./.deps/dwarf2out.TPo ../../../gcc/gcc/dwarf2out.c
[...]

The config-list.mk builds are right now only scheduled on gcc20 and
gcc76. Maybe I'd schedule them on gcc110 as well?

> By that list, did you really mean that you got even 4.4.5 to
> work on an unmodified config-list.mk?

No, I just haven't scheduled config-list.mk based builds (you know, I
right now have two different build backends, with possibly cbuild2
being integrated as a third one) on gcc110 at all.

> Perhaps you have local patches or did you call config-list.mk
> with some kind of options?  Maybe you didn't actually use
> config-list.mk?  Or just looked to see whether the first failure
> for each target was on a target-specific file or the (same)
> middle-end bits?  Ok, I'm out of guesses. :)

...and you just missed the most obvious one: It probably won't just
work at all ;-)

MfG, JBG

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbglaw@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481
 Signature of:                    Arroganz verkÃrzt fruchtlose GesprÃche.
 the second  :                                   -- Jan-Benedict Glaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature