From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 3AF7E3858407; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:38:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3AF7E3858407 From: "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/104144] [12 Regression] build fails due to: Error: unknown architecture `armv9-a' Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:38:51 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build, documentation X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:38:51 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104144 --- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw --- This sort of problem is going to keep occurring while we continue to have separate distributions of GCC and binutils. There's no way around the fact that support for a new architecture in GCC needs an assembler that understa= nds the new architecture. This is true for all architectures, not just Arm. If a users asks for all the architectural libraries to be built, then I don= 't see it as unreasonable to require an assembler that can support this as wel= l, so the issue becomes one of documentation, where we might as well just say = that the minimum requirements may be increased if you try to use anything beyond= the default configuration of the compiler. Anything more is going to result in= a completely unwieldy mess of impenetrable dependencies. I don't think there's a way to make the current multilib infrastructure ign= ore specific sub-architectures. t-multilib is already extremely complex due to= the need to reduce the number of variants to something just about tractable for= the build system; adding yet more complexity to it would make it almost impossi= ble to manage. I guess it might be possible to make the multilib configure machinery rip o= ut variants that fail during configure, but you'd still need to deal with the mappings and decide what to do if the compiler needed an unbuilt library version. Dropping back to the default multilib would often be completely w= rong as it might be an ABI change.=