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 B8DAE3858D37; Mon, 11 Sep 2023 04:27:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B8DAE3858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1694406436;
	bh=pEF2a0LUydTnyY6lswH3r7LdpMX04eY1jnWgdCcmlsg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=RixH0NnlZwbWh9Af41HsHK4WPEBQ3Rt7+uTMuT8ucx2A5yHvS9aQ10IbtNZ7LAnlc
	 PU4tV2rhQ8o42ijiJFo50cTXEOADh/jrz1zPnlLZ2cVX8btgn0vbYyMpgJRiOxIuzt
	 CWOM0OgQAp7xzurea9wLhtc39bL3Kw21GKPhDwdI=
From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <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: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 04:27:15 +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: egallager 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: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106472-4-yZ1cv0mNNQ@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 #32 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to matoro from comment #31)
> (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=
 away
>=20
> It may make it "go away", but how can it be worked around on real
> single-core 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.

Right, yes, this is still definitely a bug, I was just confirming that I was
able to get the workaround to work for me personally=