From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 0CFCB3858D3C; Sun, 10 Sep 2023 13:42:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0CFCB3858D3C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1694353369;
	bh=DU1iainZGfGfrEmkWfQWSdVlWunxupWAyFFWLBKEsY0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=oAU15kiRL6XWFh+ooanZvNJAK4El4lSobHxdpQgmO26vgla4hhzkJo/hiRbf2oExY
	 ApX0h+ZPGf7B5HVchVQOFTB5FBUMR5K5AHSOcTpiZH7r7q9gpYgEBu0277530UkOst
	 vPmSkvJ4e0ysb0HxTn+kajs+yqSUYEVwnemokXRc=
From: "matoro_gcc_bugzilla at matoro dot tk" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/106472] No rule to make target
 '../libbacktrace/libbacktrace.la', needed by 'libgo.la'.
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 13:42:47 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: matoro_gcc_bugzilla at matoro dot tk
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: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106472-4-ht08gMx8OL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106472-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106472-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106472

--- Comment #31 from matoro <matoro_gcc_bugzilla at matoro dot tk> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #30)
> (In reply to matoro from comment #26)
> > We also had somebody report on IRC that they observed this on powerpc (=
not
> > sure what tuple), again with -j1.  It does not seem to show up with -j2=
, so
> > likely -j1 is necessary to trigger.
>=20
> I can also confirm that switching to -j2 makes this particular error go a=
way

It may make it "go away", but how can it be worked around on real single-co=
re
systems?  All that does is get lucky by throwing more parallelism at it.  I=
've
been completely unable to even try out gccgo because of this bug.=