gcc packaging bug?

gcc packaging bug?

[Ken Brown]

The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say

curr: 4.8.3-2
prev: 4.8.3-3
test: 4.9.2-1

I assume this is a typo; it causes everyone who is not installing the test 
release to get downgraded from 4.8.3-3 to 4.8.3-2.

Ken

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[JonY]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 384 bytes --]

On 11/4/2014 05:46, Ken Brown wrote:
> The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say
> 
> curr: 4.8.3-2
> prev: 4.8.3-3
> test: 4.9.2-1
> 
> I assume this is a typo; it causes everyone who is not installing the
> test release to get downgraded from 4.8.3-3 to 4.8.3-2.

No, this is deliberate, 4.8.3-3 is bugged, it could not build later
versions of gcc.




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[JonY]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

On 11/4/2014 06:04, JonY wrote:
> On 11/4/2014 05:46, Ken Brown wrote:
>> The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say
>>
>> curr: 4.8.3-2
>> prev: 4.8.3-3
>> test: 4.9.2-1
>>
>> I assume this is a typo; it causes everyone who is not installing the
>> test release to get downgraded from 4.8.3-3 to 4.8.3-2.
> 
> No, this is deliberate, 4.8.3-3 is bugged, it could not build later
> versions of gcc.
> 

I forgot to mention 4.8.3-4 will be uploaded soon to fix the problem
atexit use in libgcc. It was causing configure failures in stage1 libgcc
by causing link test to return $? 0 even if it failed.




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On 2014-11-03 16:04, JonY wrote:
> On 11/4/2014 05:46, Ken Brown wrote:
>> The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say
>>
>> curr: 4.8.3-2
>> prev: 4.8.3-3
>> test: 4.9.2-1
>>
>> I assume this is a typo; it causes everyone who is not installing the
>> test release to get downgraded from 4.8.3-3 to 4.8.3-2.
>
> No, this is deliberate, 4.8.3-3 is bugged, it could not build later
> versions of gcc.

How so?

--
Yaakov


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[JonY]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 944 bytes --]

On 11/4/2014 06:11, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2014-11-03 16:04, JonY wrote:
>> On 11/4/2014 05:46, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say
>>>
>>> curr: 4.8.3-2
>>> prev: 4.8.3-3
>>> test: 4.9.2-1
>>>
>>> I assume this is a typo; it causes everyone who is not installing the
>>> test release to get downgraded from 4.8.3-3 to 4.8.3-2.
>>
>> No, this is deliberate, 4.8.3-3 is bugged, it could not build later
>> versions of gcc.
> 
> How so?

As explained in the other email, it made failed link test return $? 0
anyway. This broke the stage 1 libgcc configure tests.

Reverting to an older version of gcc and then using it to build 4.9.2-1
succeeded. I also used 4.9.2-1 to build a copy of itself as test, seems
like it works. The only real change was changing atexit use to
__cxa_atexit in libgcc.

Corinna mentioned some problems with gcc misoptimizing atexit over IRC.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[Doug Henderson]

On 3 November 2014 14:46, Ken Brown wrote:
> The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say
>
> curr: 4.8.3-2
> prev: 4.8.3-3
> test: 4.9.2-1

Setup-x86_64.exe is reporting that cygwin-devel is a dependency of
gcc-core now. Is this an intentional change?

Doug

-- 
Doug Henderson, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[JonY]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 443 bytes --]

On 11/4/2014 08:48, Doug Henderson wrote:
> On 3 November 2014 14:46, Ken Brown wrote:
>> The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say
>>
>> curr: 4.8.3-2
>> prev: 4.8.3-3
>> test: 4.9.2-1
> 
> Setup-x86_64.exe is reporting that cygwin-devel is a dependency of
> gcc-core now. Is this an intentional change?
> 
> Doug
> 

Yes, cygwin may split into a devel package in the future. It is a dummy
package for now.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 654 bytes --]

On Nov  3 17:48, Doug Henderson wrote:
> On 3 November 2014 14:46, Ken Brown wrote:
> > The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say
> >
> > curr: 4.8.3-2
> > prev: 4.8.3-3
> > test: 4.9.2-1
> 
> Setup-x86_64.exe is reporting that cygwin-devel is a dependency of
> gcc-core now. Is this an intentional change?

Yes.  Right now the cygwin-devel package is an empty package, but the
next release will split the cygwin package into a base package and a
devel package.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2010 bytes --]

On Nov  4 06:24, JonY wrote:
> On 11/4/2014 06:11, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > On 2014-11-03 16:04, JonY wrote:
> >> On 11/4/2014 05:46, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>> The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say
> >>>
> >>> curr: 4.8.3-2
> >>> prev: 4.8.3-3
> >>> test: 4.9.2-1
> >>>
> >>> I assume this is a typo; it causes everyone who is not installing the
> >>> test release to get downgraded from 4.8.3-3 to 4.8.3-2.
> >>
> >> No, this is deliberate, 4.8.3-3 is bugged, it could not build later
> >> versions of gcc.

That wasn't what I meant on IRC.  I thought we keep 4.8.3-3 while you're
looking into 4.8.3-4.  Especially given that this problem only occurs on
64 bit, but not on 32 bit, and 1.7.33 has a workaround for this problem.
4.8.3-2 is built without cxa_atexit support at all and thus the
applications built with it are potentially missing functionality.  The
potential crash can easily be "fixed" by updating Cygwin to the test
relase.

> > How so?
> 
> As explained in the other email, it made failed link test return $? 0
> anyway. This broke the stage 1 libgcc configure tests.
> 
> Reverting to an older version of gcc and then using it to build 4.9.2-1
> succeeded. I also used 4.9.2-1 to build a copy of itself as test, seems
> like it works. The only real change was changing atexit use to
> __cxa_atexit in libgcc.
> 
> Corinna mentioned some problems with gcc misoptimizing atexit over IRC.

It's not really misoptimizing.  It's more a problem how atexit works in
Cygwin, combined with GCCs tail call optimization.  atexit tries to
figure out the DSO which called it from the return address on the stack.
GCCs tail call optimization eliminates the return address of the caller
and thus the return address is not the one of the caller, but of the
caller's caller in atexit.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[Marco Atzeri]

On 11/4/2014 10:31 AM, JonY wrote:
> On 11/4/2014 08:48, Doug Henderson wrote:
>> On 3 November 2014 14:46, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> The setup.hint files for gcc and its subpackages now say
>>>
>>> curr: 4.8.3-2
>>> prev: 4.8.3-3
>>> test: 4.9.2-1
>>
>> Setup-x86_64.exe is reporting that cygwin-devel is a dependency of
>> gcc-core now. Is this an intentional change?
>>
>> Doug
>>
>
> Yes, cygwin may split into a devel package in the future. It is a dummy
> package for now.
>
>

please also check why gcc-g++ requires Python3 (at least on 64 bit)

Regards
Marco

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: gcc packaging bug?

[JonY]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 202 bytes --]

On 11/4/2014 17:54, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> 
> 
> please also check why gcc-g++ requires Python3 (at least on 64 bit)
> 

Done, the mirrors should be refresh shortly (for x86 32bit as well).




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]