[Bug middle-end/45508] New: Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?

[Bug middle-end/45508] New: Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?

[nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de]

Hi everybody,

I'm not involved in any gcc development nor am I familiar with gcc and its
components and thus, the attached patch is just a place to start from if you
agree with me that my request for adding more control over the specs via
configure options makes sense.

My problem is this one:
At our site, we provide many versions of several compilers, including the great
GCC, at non-standard locations. The problem is with the runtime search paths
for the libgcc_s, ...: The runtime linker always finds the most wrong one: The
one from Blastwave in /opt/csw/lib (this is Solaris-specific, but if it were
Linux or sth. other, it would also find the wrong libgcc_s, shipped with the
distribution, or none at all). 

Asking the kind guys in #gcc at freenode, they told me that I might want to
supply a specs file. Hmm, I want to set site-wide specs for all users
transparently. Reading the sourcecode of gcc, I recognized that I can put a
complete specs file to <gcc_prefix>/lib/gcc/<target>/<version>/specs.
(I didn't find any documentation about that feature, so maybe this lack of docs
is another bug?).

But this solution has two drawbacks for me:
- I'm bootstrapping and the linking of the runtime libraries for the target
would not be influenced by placing this specs-file _after_ installation. Ok, I
could go with LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET, but this would make the whole thing more
non-convenient (at least in my opionion).
- Creating that specs-file for every GCC-release makes automating the GCC
deployment harder: At first I have to check if the default-specs are still the
same, the I have to modify them to insert a runtime search path for the new
installation location and then I have to put it at the right location. It seems
that I have to exercise some bash/sed/diff/m4-tasks...

Another solution would be this:
Adding a --with-link-libgcc-specs option to the configure in the
gcc-subdirectory, I could configure gcc with
../gcc-4.5.1/configure
--with-link-libgcc-specs="\${!m64:-R/opt/gcc-4.5.1/lib}\${m64:-R/opt/gcc-4.5.1/lib/sparcv9}"
...
(btw: "-R" is the "-rpath"-equivalent of the Sun Linker on Solaris)

If this user-supplied spec would be prepended/appended to the default
link_libgcc spec, all would be fine.

The attached patch is for link_libgcc spec only, but maybe altering the other
specs by configure-options might be useful for other people under other
circumstances, too?

Please note again, that the attached patch is just a quick hack, if you agree
to add those options, one should have a closer look.

Best wishes

Nicolai


-- 
           Summary: Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make
                    sense?
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: middle-end
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de
 GCC build triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
  GCC host triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508

[Bug middle-end/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?

[nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de]

------- Comment #1 from nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de  2010-09-02 19:49 -------
Created an attachment (id=21678)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21678&action=view)
Adds --with-link-libgcc-specs to gcc-4.5.1/gcc/configure

Made against release 4.5.1


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508

[Bug middle-end/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?

[pinskia at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gmail dot com  2010-09-02 19:55 -------
Subject: Re:   New: Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make
sense?

You could use a small wrapper script that adds R option instead of a  
specs file or adds the specs file to the command line.

On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:48 PM, "nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de"
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org 
 > wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm not involved in any gcc development nor am I familiar with gcc  
> and its
> components and thus, the attached patch is just a place to start  
> from if you
> agree with me that my request for adding more control over the specs  
> via
> configure options makes sense.
>
> My problem is this one:
> At our site, we provide many versions of several compilers,  
> including the great
> GCC, at non-standard locations. The problem is with the runtime  
> search paths
> for the libgcc_s, ...: The runtime linker always finds the most  
> wrong one: The
> one from Blastwave in /opt/csw/lib (this is Solaris-specific, but if  
> it were
> Linux or sth. other, it would also find the wrong libgcc_s, shipped  
> with the
> distribution, or none at all).
>
> Asking the kind guys in #gcc at freenode, they told me that I might  
> want to
> supply a specs file. Hmm, I want to set site-wide specs for all users
> transparently. Reading the sourcecode of gcc, I recognized that I  
> can put a
> complete specs file to <gcc_prefix>/lib/gcc/<target>/<version>/specs.
> (I didn't find any documentation about that feature, so maybe this  
> lack of docs
> is another bug?).
>
> But this solution has two drawbacks for me:
> - I'm bootstrapping and the linking of the runtime libraries for the  
> target
> would not be influenced by placing this specs-file _after_  
> installation. Ok, I
> could go with LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET, but this would make the whole  
> thing more
> non-convenient (at least in my opionion).
> - Creating that specs-file for every GCC-release makes automating  
> the GCC
> deployment harder: At first I have to check if the default-specs are  
> still the
> same, the I have to modify them to insert a runtime search path for  
> the new
> installation location and then I have to put it at the right  
> location. It seems
> that I have to exercise some bash/sed/diff/m4-tasks...
>
> Another solution would be this:
> Adding a --with-link-libgcc-specs option to the configure in the
> gcc-subdirectory, I could configure gcc with
> ../gcc-4.5.1/configure
> --with-link-libgcc-specs="\${!m64:-R/opt/gcc-4.5.1/lib}\${m64:-R/opt/ 
> gcc-4.5.1/lib/sparcv9}"
> ...
> (btw: "-R" is the "-rpath"-equivalent of the Sun Linker on Solaris)
>
> If this user-supplied spec would be prepended/appended to the default
> link_libgcc spec, all would be fine.
>
> The attached patch is for link_libgcc spec only, but maybe altering  
> the other
> specs by configure-options might be useful for other people under  
> other
> circumstances, too?
>
> Please note again, that the attached patch is just a quick hack, if  
> you agree
> to add those options, one should have a closer look.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Nicolai
>
>
> -- 
>           Summary: Does adding configure-options for specs- 
> hardcoding make
>                    sense?
>           Product: gcc
>           Version: 4.5.1
>            Status: UNCONFIRMED
>          Severity: normal
>          Priority: P3
>         Component: middle-end
>        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
>        ReportedBy: nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de
> GCC build triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
>  GCC host triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
> GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508
>


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508

Re: [Bug middle-end/45508] New: Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?

[Andrew Pinski]

You could use a small wrapper script that adds R option instead of a  
specs file or adds the specs file to the command line.

On Sep 2, 2010, at 12:48 PM, "nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org 
 > wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm not involved in any gcc development nor am I familiar with gcc  
> and its
> components and thus, the attached patch is just a place to start  
> from if you
> agree with me that my request for adding more control over the specs  
> via
> configure options makes sense.
>
> My problem is this one:
> At our site, we provide many versions of several compilers,  
> including the great
> GCC, at non-standard locations. The problem is with the runtime  
> search paths
> for the libgcc_s, ...: The runtime linker always finds the most  
> wrong one: The
> one from Blastwave in /opt/csw/lib (this is Solaris-specific, but if  
> it were
> Linux or sth. other, it would also find the wrong libgcc_s, shipped  
> with the
> distribution, or none at all).
>
> Asking the kind guys in #gcc at freenode, they told me that I might  
> want to
> supply a specs file. Hmm, I want to set site-wide specs for all users
> transparently. Reading the sourcecode of gcc, I recognized that I  
> can put a
> complete specs file to <gcc_prefix>/lib/gcc/<target>/<version>/specs.
> (I didn't find any documentation about that feature, so maybe this  
> lack of docs
> is another bug?).
>
> But this solution has two drawbacks for me:
> - I'm bootstrapping and the linking of the runtime libraries for the  
> target
> would not be influenced by placing this specs-file _after_  
> installation. Ok, I
> could go with LDFLAGS_FOR_TARGET, but this would make the whole  
> thing more
> non-convenient (at least in my opionion).
> - Creating that specs-file for every GCC-release makes automating  
> the GCC
> deployment harder: At first I have to check if the default-specs are  
> still the
> same, the I have to modify them to insert a runtime search path for  
> the new
> installation location and then I have to put it at the right  
> location. It seems
> that I have to exercise some bash/sed/diff/m4-tasks...
>
> Another solution would be this:
> Adding a --with-link-libgcc-specs option to the configure in the
> gcc-subdirectory, I could configure gcc with
> ../gcc-4.5.1/configure
> --with-link-libgcc-specs="\${!m64:-R/opt/gcc-4.5.1/lib}\${m64:-R/opt/ 
> gcc-4.5.1/lib/sparcv9}"
> ...
> (btw: "-R" is the "-rpath"-equivalent of the Sun Linker on Solaris)
>
> If this user-supplied spec would be prepended/appended to the default
> link_libgcc spec, all would be fine.
>
> The attached patch is for link_libgcc spec only, but maybe altering  
> the other
> specs by configure-options might be useful for other people under  
> other
> circumstances, too?
>
> Please note again, that the attached patch is just a quick hack, if  
> you agree
> to add those options, one should have a closer look.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Nicolai
>
>
> -- 
>           Summary: Does adding configure-options for specs- 
> hardcoding make
>                    sense?
>           Product: gcc
>           Version: 4.5.1
>            Status: UNCONFIRMED
>          Severity: normal
>          Priority: P3
>         Component: middle-end
>        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
>        ReportedBy: nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de
> GCC build triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
>  GCC host triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
> GCC target triplet: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508
>

[Bug middle-end/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?

[nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de]

------- Comment #3 from nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de  2010-09-02 20:15 -------
> You could use a small wrapper script that adds R option instead of a  
> specs file or adds the specs file to the command line.
This would change nothing:
- The bootstrapping problem remains
- Whether I add a specs file or a wrapper script for every gcc release's
deployment doesn't make a great difference (except that I would not have to
check the default specs for changes every time)

It is not a question whether it is possible to work around it (I've already
done it), but whether it would be good to provide a more convenient way and
whether enough people would benefit from this patch to justify it.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508

[Bug middle-end/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-02 22:28 -------
The problem with the configure is the libgcc specs are very target dependent. 
Anyways I don't see the issue with using -R in a wrapper script and while
bootstrapping in LIB_CFLAGS="-R" .


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508

[Bug middle-end/45508] Does adding configure-options for specs-hardcoding make sense?

[nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de]

------- Comment #5 from nicolai dot stange at zmaw dot de  2010-09-04 19:31 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> The problem with the configure is the libgcc specs are very target dependent.
Yes, and that's the reason why I think that others might benefit from those
configure-options.

Another remark that I forgot in my first post: There's already an --with-specs
option that sets some specs for something (I don't know for what exactly, but
it can't be used to set link options, I already tried it: Some other tools
complain about unknown options).

If your concern is about the work, not about the additional complexicity:
I would do the work to add those options, just tell me
- For which specs I should do it (all or just link_libgcc)
- How do you want the CPP-Macros for the values of the configure-options to be
named?
- Should those values override or be appended/prepended to the
platform-specific default-specs?
  * If appended/prepended: How do you want the CPP-macro for the concatenated,
final spec string to be named?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508