* gcc 4.6.0 @ 2011-06-04 17:44 Bill Cunningham 2011-06-04 17:49 ` Axel Freyn 2011-06-04 17:56 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Bill Cunningham @ 2011-06-04 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-help The compilation I just did of gcc 4.6.0 seems to have worked. I did two things differently. I used a build directory outside of the source directory. And secondly I compiled with c++ support. I used the --enable-languages=c,c++ switch also. I would rather have compiled without the c++ support. I don't use c++ much and it took a very long time to compile. Does anyone know which two of these things may have really made the difference? Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-04 17:44 gcc 4.6.0 Bill Cunningham @ 2011-06-04 17:49 ` Axel Freyn 2011-06-04 17:56 ` Jonathan Wakely 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Axel Freyn @ 2011-06-04 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Cunningham; +Cc: gcc-help On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 01:43:56PM -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote: > The compilation I just did of gcc 4.6.0 seems to have worked. I did > two things differently. I used a build directory outside of the source > directory. And secondly I compiled with c++ support. I used the > --enable-languages=c,c++ switch also. > > I would rather have compiled without the c++ support. I don't use c++ > much and it took a very long time to compile. Does anyone know which two > of these things may have really made the difference? Hi Bill, as documented on http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html it's a bad idea to use a build directory inside the source tree: "First, we highly recommend that GCC be built into a separate directory from the sources which does not reside within the source tree. This is how we generally build GCC; building where srcdir == objdir should still work, but doesn't get extensive testing; building where objdir is a subdirectory of srcdir is unsupported. " So probably that made the difference... Axel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-04 17:44 gcc 4.6.0 Bill Cunningham 2011-06-04 17:49 ` Axel Freyn @ 2011-06-04 17:56 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-04 18:28 ` Bill Cunningham 2011-06-07 19:55 ` David Kirkby 1 sibling, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-04 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Cunningham; +Cc: gcc-help On 4 June 2011 18:43, Bill Cunningham wrote: > The compilation I just did of gcc 4.6.0 seems to have worked. I did two > things differently. I used a build directory outside of the source > directory. And secondly I compiled with c++ support. I used the > --enable-languages=c,c++ switch also. > > I would rather have compiled without the c++ support. I don't use c++ much > and it took a very long time to compile. Does anyone know which two of these > things may have really made the difference? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-06/msg00066.html Do you not believe all the documentation saying that configuring inside the source tree might fail? Even when doing so causes your build to fail, and not doing so causes it to succeed? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-04 17:56 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-04 18:28 ` Bill Cunningham 2011-06-04 18:51 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-07 19:55 ` David Kirkby 1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Bill Cunningham @ 2011-06-04 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely, gcc-help Jonathan Wakely wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-06/msg00066.html > > Do you not believe all the documentation saying that configuring > inside the source tree might fail? That's the key word *might*. What I read is that it hasn't had extensive testing. I should never have tried a build directory inside the source tree though because that is definately not supported. > Even when doing so causes your build to fail, and not doing so causes > it to succeed? That's quite probably then what the problem was. This is the first version of gcc I've ever compiled that wasn't within the source directory. This version is evidently a "bird of a different feather". Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-04 18:28 ` Bill Cunningham @ 2011-06-04 18:51 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-06 21:13 ` kevin diggs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-04 18:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bill Cunningham; +Cc: gcc-help On 4 June 2011 19:27, Bill Cunningham wrote: > > That's quite probably then what the problem was. This is the first version > of gcc I've ever compiled that wasn't within the source directory. This > version is evidently a "bird of a different feather". The docs have said not to do it for at least 10 years so if it worked previously you got lucky. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-04 18:51 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-06 21:13 ` kevin diggs 2011-06-07 0:03 ` Kai Ruottu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: kevin diggs @ 2011-06-06 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: Bill Cunningham, gcc-help Hi, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > > The docs have said not to do it for at least 10 years so if it worked > previously you got lucky. > With all the trouble this causes one wonders why it is not caught and flagged as an error ... kevin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-06 21:13 ` kevin diggs @ 2011-06-07 0:03 ` Kai Ruottu 2011-06-07 7:54 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Kai Ruottu @ 2011-06-07 0:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-help 6.6.2011 23:47, kevin diggs kirjoitti: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Jonathan Wakely<jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The docs have said not to do it for at least 10 years so if it worked >> previously you got lucky. >> > > With all the trouble this causes one wonders why it is not caught and > flagged as an error ... Five GCCs, gcc-3.3.6 - 4.2.4 and 4.6.0, made for RHL9 target on CentOS 5.6 and no problems... In a 'build' subdirectory in the main src dir. Before these more than 1000 GCC builds and never any problems... Generally forcing people to make "directory bloat" - separate build dir for each source package - or maybe using some amount of common ones, for instance 5 for max 5 parallel builds for different sources, would sound nuisance for the builders... Building in a separate originally empty build directory inside the source package is much, much clearer... For curiosity I will install RHL9 into an unused P-III 733MHz/512MB PC and see if there really can be some problem with this build platform and the gcc-4.6.0 sources... As $host and $target RHL9 hadn't anything, neither the only-C or C with C++ made any difference... Sad that people cannot do any "> BuildLog 2>&1" redirections or see the right 'config.log's nowadays in order to tell where the smoke was rising... :( The habit to build in an subdirectory of the GCC sources is quite common among the RedHat-derived distros, like CentOS : [root@localhost ~]# gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.2/specs Target: i386-redhat-linux Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-checking=release --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-libunwind-exceptions --enable-libgcj-multifile --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,obj-c++,java,fortran,ada --enable-java-awt=gtk --disable-dssi --disable-plugin --with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-1.4.2.0/jre --with-cpu=generic --host=i386-redhat-linux Thread model: posix gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-50) and was common already in 2003 in RHL9 : [root@localhost ~]# cd /opt/host-RedHat9.0/usr/bin [root@localhost bin]# ./gcc -v Reading specs from ./../lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/3.2.2/specs Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --disable-checking --with-system-zlib --enable-__cxa_atexit --host=i386-redhat-linux Thread model: posix gcc version 3.2.2 20030222 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.2-5) So maybe you guys should start to nag to the Red Hat, CentOS etc. people about their way to build GCCs... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-07 0:03 ` Kai Ruottu @ 2011-06-07 7:54 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-07 8:09 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-07 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kai Ruottu; +Cc: gcc-help On 6 June 2011 22:41, Kai Ruottu wrote: > > The habit to build in an subdirectory of the GCC sources is quite common > among the RedHat-derived distros, like CentOS : It's ok if the name of the sub-directory doesn't clash with on that gets created as part of the build. > So maybe you guys should start to nag to the Red Hat, CentOS etc. people > about their way to build GCCs... They don't ask for help with their builds. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-07 7:54 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-07 8:09 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-07 19:40 ` kevin diggs 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-07 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kai Ruottu; +Cc: gcc-help On 7 June 2011 08:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 6 June 2011 22:41, Kai Ruottu wrote: >> >> The habit to build in an subdirectory of the GCC sources is quite common >> among the RedHat-derived distros, like CentOS : > > It's ok if the name of the sub-directory doesn't clash with on that > gets created as part of the build. > >> So maybe you guys should start to nag to the Red Hat, CentOS etc. people >> about their way to build GCCs... > > They don't ask for help with their builds. The point is that it's unsupported. So when people come asking for support they should do it the supported way. Anyway, by far the biggest problem is the "cannot compute suffix of object files" failure due to trying to install the prerequisite libs by hand in arbitrary places unknown to the dynamic linker. A more useful configure check would be to test that early on and fail with a meaningful message. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-07 8:09 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-07 19:40 ` kevin diggs 2011-06-08 6:05 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: kevin diggs @ 2011-06-07 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: Kai Ruottu, gcc-help Hi, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > > Anyway, by far the biggest problem is the "cannot compute suffix of > object files" failure due to trying to install the prerequisite libs > by hand in arbitrary places unknown to the dynamic linker. A more > useful configure check would be to test that early on and fail with a > meaningful message. > I hope to avoid getting flamed for this, but ... If I give gcc a --with-gmp=<path>, I do NOT understand why that is not enough. Though I admit I do not understand all of the dynamic library location machinery. From what little I understand, If gcc built itself with -rpath then all would be cool??? Maybe a new configure option: --enable-self-rpath? I don't know what else gmp *might* be used for on this system (in this case a Toshiba A75 (3.2 GHz p4)). Debian 5.x did install a gmp (library is libgmp.so.3.4.2). But I installed a specific version for gcc to use. ... just cauz buildin stuff is a hoot. kevin P.S.: why is the lib for gmp-4.3.2 called libgmp.so.3.5.2???????? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-07 19:40 ` kevin diggs @ 2011-06-08 6:05 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-08 9:05 ` Jonathan Wakely ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-08 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kevin diggs; +Cc: Kai Ruottu, gcc-help On 7 June 2011 20:20, kevin diggs wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Anyway, by far the biggest problem is the "cannot compute suffix of >> object files" failure due to trying to install the prerequisite libs >> by hand in arbitrary places unknown to the dynamic linker. A more >> useful configure check would be to test that early on and fail with a >> meaningful message. >> > > I hope to avoid getting flamed for this, but ... > > If I give gcc a --with-gmp=<path>, I do NOT understand why that is not > enough. Though I admit I do not understand all of the dynamic library > location machinery. From what little I understand, If gcc built itself > with -rpath then all would be cool??? Maybe a new configure option: > --enable-self-rpath? If by "self rpath" you mean setting rpath to the directory where gcc is installed that won't help when people have installed gmp, mpfr and mpc elsewhere (which they often do) See http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#rpath for why GCC doesn't set rpath automatically, unlike some other compilers. If you want it to have an rpath you have that option, using appropriate linker flags or the LD_RUN_PATH environment variable. Or if you want to build statically you have that option, or if you don't want to fix it to work with a specific version in a specific location and let the dynami linker find it in its usual path, you have that option. > I don't know what else gmp *might* be used for on this system (in this > case a Toshiba A75 (3.2 GHz p4)). Debian 5.x did install a gmp > (library is libgmp.so.3.4.2). But I installed a specific version for > gcc to use. ... just cauz buildin stuff is a hoot. > > kevin > > P.S.: why is the lib for gmp-4.3.2 called libgmp.so.3.5.2???????? A shared library's soname is not the same as the release number of the project, so they don't have to be the same. The C++ runtime library for GCC 4.6 is libstdc++.so.6.0.16 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-08 6:05 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-08 9:05 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-08 11:09 ` Andrew Haley 2011-06-08 22:14 ` kevin diggs 2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-08 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kevin diggs; +Cc: gcc-help On 7 June 2011 23:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> P.S.: why is the lib for gmp-4.3.2 called libgmp.so.3.5.2???????? > > A shared library's soname is not the same as the release number of the > project, so they don't have to be the same. See http://sourceware.org/autobook/autobook/autobook_91.html for more on that subject, as well as http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Updating-version-info.html which says "*Never* try to set the interface numbers so that they correspond to the release number of your package." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-08 6:05 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-08 9:05 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-08 11:09 ` Andrew Haley 2011-06-08 12:03 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-08 22:14 ` kevin diggs 2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2011-06-08 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-help On 07/06/11 23:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 7 June 2011 20:20, kevin diggs wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Anyway, by far the biggest problem is the "cannot compute suffix of >>> object files" failure due to trying to install the prerequisite libs >>> by hand in arbitrary places unknown to the dynamic linker. A more >>> useful configure check would be to test that early on and fail with a >>> meaningful message. >> >> I hope to avoid getting flamed for this, but ... >> >> If I give gcc a --with-gmp=<path>, I do NOT understand why that is not >> enough. Though I admit I do not understand all of the dynamic library >> location machinery. From what little I understand, If gcc built itself >> with -rpath then all would be cool??? Maybe a new configure option: >> --enable-self-rpath? > > If by "self rpath" you mean setting rpath to the directory where gcc > is installed that won't help when people have installed gmp, mpfr and > mpc elsewhere (which they often do) This subject never seems to end. Every month we go around it again. I really don't understand why people go through so much pain for GMP. If everyone just ran ./contrib/download_prerequisites first, the problem would go away. Maybe we need to revise the build instructions. Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-08 11:09 ` Andrew Haley @ 2011-06-08 12:03 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-08 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley; +Cc: gcc-help On 8 June 2011 10:04, Andrew Haley wrote: > > This subject never seems to end. Every month we go around it again. > I really don't understand why people go through so much pain for GMP. I think it's because they stop reading after the second sentence of "Necessary to build GCC. If you do not have it installed in your library search path, you will have to configure with the --with-gmp configure option. See also --with-gmp-lib and --with-gmp-include. Alternatively, if a GMP source distribution is found in a subdirectory of your GCC sources named gmp, it will be built together with GCC. " > If everyone just ran ./contrib/download_prerequisites first, the > problem would go away. Maybe we need to revise the build instructions. Yes, I think there should be a very strong recommendation to put the prereq sources in the gcc tree (as download_prerequisites does) and that recommendation should appear before (or instead of) any mention of --with-gmp etc. so that people who just skim the docs won't find --with-gmp etc. If you know what you're doing and are prepared to spend more than 30 seconds R'ing TFM you'll find the --with-xxx options. There should also be big hint that for most Linux distros the prereqs are available via your usual package manager, which makes it a complete non-issue as everything is installed where ldconfig will find it. I'm sick of pointing people to the relevant FAQs several times a week and already started some improvements to the installation docs on Monday, I'll try to get that finished in the next day or two. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-08 6:05 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-08 9:05 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-08 11:09 ` Andrew Haley @ 2011-06-08 22:14 ` kevin diggs 2011-06-09 4:26 ` Jonathan Wakely 2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: kevin diggs @ 2011-06-08 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: Kai Ruottu, gcc-help Hi, On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > > If by "self rpath" you mean setting rpath to the directory where gcc > is installed that won't help when people have installed gmp, mpfr and > mpc elsewhere (which they often do) > No, I mean adding an rpath with the path for these trouble makers into "whatever" in gcc needs to find them. A specific rpath isn't tied to a particular library, is it? For example if I build gcc using particular revision of gmp in a particular spot (hacked to include an rpath to find it). And then download and build a minor rev to gmp in a different place and remove the original. If I tell the dynamic linker about the new gmp will gcc still run? > See http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#rpath for why GCC doesn't set rpath > automatically, unlike some other compilers. > Thanks for the link. I'll take a look. > If you want it to have an rpath you have that option, using > appropriate linker flags or the LD_RUN_PATH environment variable. > Is this env in the install manual? I'll take a peek. Might give it a try. kevin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-08 22:14 ` kevin diggs @ 2011-06-09 4:26 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-09 4:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kevin diggs; +Cc: Kai Ruottu, gcc-help On 8 June 2011 18:52, kevin diggs wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If by "self rpath" you mean setting rpath to the directory where gcc >> is installed that won't help when people have installed gmp, mpfr and >> mpc elsewhere (which they often do) >> > No, I mean adding an rpath with the path for these trouble makers into > "whatever" in gcc needs to find them. A specific rpath isn't tied to a > particular library, is it? For example if I build gcc using particular > revision of gmp in a particular spot (hacked to include an rpath to > find it). And then download and build a minor rev to gmp in a > different place and remove the original. If I tell the dynamic linker > about the new gmp will gcc still run? Yes >> See http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#rpath for why GCC doesn't set rpath >> automatically, unlike some other compilers. >> > Thanks for the link. I'll take a look. > >> If you want it to have an rpath you have that option, using >> appropriate linker flags or the LD_RUN_PATH environment variable. >> > Is this env in the install manual? I'll take a peek. Might give it a try. Try "man ld" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 4.6.0 2011-06-04 17:56 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-04 18:28 ` Bill Cunningham @ 2011-06-07 19:55 ` David Kirkby 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: David Kirkby @ 2011-06-07 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: Bill Cunningham, gcc-help On 4 June 2011 18:56, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 June 2011 18:43, Bill Cunningham wrote: >> The compilation I just did of gcc 4.6.0 seems to have worked. I did two >> things differently. I used a build directory outside of the source >> directory. And secondly I compiled with c++ support. I used the >> --enable-languages=c,c++ switch also. >> >> I would rather have compiled without the c++ support. I don't use c++ much >> and it took a very long time to compile. Does anyone know which two of these >> things may have really made the difference? > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-06/msg00066.html > > Do you not believe all the documentation saying that configuring > inside the source tree might fail? > Even when doing so causes your build to fail, and not doing so causes > it to succeed? > To be honest, gcc should do what ATLAS linear algebra library does - just refuses to build if one attempts to build in the source directory. Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-06-08 22:04 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-06-04 17:44 gcc 4.6.0 Bill Cunningham 2011-06-04 17:49 ` Axel Freyn 2011-06-04 17:56 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-04 18:28 ` Bill Cunningham 2011-06-04 18:51 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-06 21:13 ` kevin diggs 2011-06-07 0:03 ` Kai Ruottu 2011-06-07 7:54 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-07 8:09 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-07 19:40 ` kevin diggs 2011-06-08 6:05 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-08 9:05 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-08 11:09 ` Andrew Haley 2011-06-08 12:03 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-08 22:14 ` kevin diggs 2011-06-09 4:26 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-07 19:55 ` David Kirkby
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).