GCC 4.9.2 Build Fails at cc1

[Cyd Haselton]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Cyd Haselton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/12/14 18:25, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Cyd Haselton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is this something to report to mpfr or gmp maintainers or here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should first try a recent version of GMP. The one from
>>>> download_prerequisites is older than Android...
>>>
>>>
>>> If we need to update download_prerequisites we can easily do that.
>>>
>>> Andrew.
>>>
>> See my most recent question about current version and stability.
>> Also, version 5.0.0 did not resolve the issue.
>
>
> 5.0.0 is not that recent either...
> (why anyone would first try version x.y.0 when many x.y.z are available is
> beyond me)
>

Because there's a balance between later stable version and later
version that works with an in-tree build of GCC/MPFR/MPC.
My reasoning was that 5.0.0 is the next version up from 4.3.2...which
is the version specified in download_prerequisites...but that was
before finding out that version 5.0.0 introduced a bunch of new code.
6.0.0 is the most stable version, but
>> Additionally, while I can configure gmp on Android, I cannot build it
>> as some of the dependencies...specifically mpn...require M4 and
>> setting M4=m4-not-needed does not work for them.
>
>
> Passing --disable-assembly to configure might make m4 optional (in gmp-6).
>

Thanks...I will try that.

>> While I'm working on
>> porting a lot of standard linux utilities to Android, I'm limited to
>> those that require a minimum of reconfiguration and/or ones that I'm
>> somewhat familiar with.  M4 is outside of both of those requirements.
>
>
> I don't think m4 should be hard to port (but I have no experience with
> android).

Is the build complexity similar to, say, curl?

>
> --
> Marc Glisse