[Bug c++/62224] [4.9 Regression] Possible regression in gcc-4.9-20140820

[chris2553 at googlemail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224

--- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton <chris2553 at googlemail dot com> ---
Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that means.

I think you are saying that prior to r214208, the symbols definedMacros() and
headerPaths() were present but effectively no-ops. Post r214208 they now
"contain" operations including calls to ensureUpdated().

Given that the symbol for ensureUpdated() appears to be present in
libCppTools.so (along with the symbols for its two post-r214208 callers), does
that suggest a problem with the linker, which is /usr/bin/ld from the latest
version (2.24) of binutils?

Or could it be anything to do with my system being a 32bit userspace on a 64bit
kernel? I usually build packages as rpms and have the rpm binary wrapped in a
script which uses prefixes the call to the actual rpm binary with "setarch
i386". I've been careful whilst investigated this problem to make sure that I
prefix calls to qmake and make with "setarch i386". I've built loads and loads
of packages with this setup (including gcc).

I'm just trying to figure out the next port of call with this problem. I note
that the Debian folks have a bug logged but seem to be waiting on resolution
via this bug report - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=759862.