x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. "-D ROSWELL_HTML_TEST" -O2 -pipe -march=native -fno-common -c -o html_sbcl-proc-opt.o `test -f 'proc-opt.c' || echo './'`proc-opt.c x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. "-D ROSWELL_HTML_TEST" -O2 -pipe -march=native -fno-common -c -o html_sbcl-manual.o `test -f 'manual.c' || echo './'`manual.c x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. "-D ROSWELL_HTML_TEST" -O2 -pipe -march=native -fno-common -c -o html_sbcl-manual_windows.o `test -f 'manual_windows.c' || echo './'`manual_windows.c x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc "-D ROSWELL_HTML_TEST" -O2 -pipe -march=native -fno-common -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed -o html_sbcl html_sbcl-html.o html_sbcl-html-sbcl-bin.o html_sbcl-main.o html_sbcl-opt.o html_sbcl-util.o html_sbcl-util_windows.o html_sbcl-util-list.o html_sbcl-util-string.o html_sbcl-util-dir.o html_sbcl-util-dir_windows.o html_sbcl-util-file.o html_sbcl-util-file_windows.o html_sbcl-util-system.o html_sbcl-util-system_windows.o html_sbcl-util-cmdline.o html_sbcl-proc-opt.o html_sbcl-manual.o html_sbcl-manual_windows.o -lcurl /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.2.0/../../../../x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: html_sbcl-main.o:(.bss+0x40): multiple definition of `argv_orig'; html_sbcl-html-sbcl-bin.o:(.bss+0x0): first defined here collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status ------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an unstable amd64 chroot image at a tinderbox (==build bot) name: 17.1-test-20200215-161616 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the tracker bug for details. gcc-config -l: [1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-9.2.0 * clang: clang version 9.0.1 Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Thread model: posix InstalledDir: /usr/lib/llvm/9/bin llvm: 9.0.1 Available Python interpreters, in order of preference: [1] python3.8 [2] python3.7 [3] python3.6 [4] python2.7 (fallback) Available Rust versions: [1] rust-1.41.0 * java-config: The following VMs are available for generation-2: ghc: The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 8.0.2 repository: ==> /var/db/repos/gentoo/metadata/timestamp.chk <== Sat, 22 Feb 2020 01:37:38 +0000 emerge -qpvO dev-lisp/roswell [ebuild N ] dev-lisp/roswell-19.12.13.103
Created attachment 615014 [details] emerge-info.txt
Created attachment 615016 [details] dev-lisp:roswell-19.12.13.103:20200222-021722.log
Created attachment 615018 [details] emerge-history.txt
Created attachment 615020 [details] environment
Created attachment 615022 [details] etc.portage.tbz2
Created attachment 615024 [details] logs.tbz2
Created attachment 615026 [details] temp.tbz2
I could not reproduct it on my system. Compiler: gcc version 9.2.0 (Gentoo 9.2.0-r4 p5) Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Do you have any extra ld configurations?
(In reply to Danny from comment #8) > Do you have any extra ld configurations? except -fno-common ? No
Created attachment 615672 [details] Build log on Danny's machine
(In reply to Danny from comment #10) > Created attachment 615672 [details] > Build log on Danny's machine It is strange that I still cannot reproduce it. Related snippets in make.conf file: CFLAGS="-O2 -pipe -fno-common" CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" CHOST="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu" FEATURES="nostrip buildpkg parallel-fetch" CPU_FLAGS_X86="aes avx avx2 f16c fma3 mmx mmxext pclmul popcnt sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 sse4a ssse3" I noticed that you have something like "html_sbcl-xxx" in your build log, while I do not have it. Do you have any clue?
(In reply to Danny from comment #11) > (In reply to Danny from comment #10) > > Created attachment 615672 [details] > > Build log on Danny's machine > > It is strange that I still cannot reproduce it. Note that ago actually hit this in bug 733152 too, although it wasn't the focus there. My only guess here is that maybe GCC 10 is stricter? Can you reproduce it with GCC 10 in e.g. a chroot?
Created attachment 651344 [details] gcc -v
(In reply to Sam James from comment #12) > (In reply to Danny from comment #11) > > (In reply to Danny from comment #10) > > > Created attachment 615672 [details] > > > Build log on Danny's machine > > > > It is strange that I still cannot reproduce it. > > Note that ago actually hit this in bug 733152 too, although it wasn't the > focus there. > > My only guess here is that maybe GCC 10 is stricter? Can you reproduce it > with GCC 10 in e.g. a chroot? I am using GCC 10 on my machine. Still cannot hit it :-(
I can build it now at least, let's take that as a win!
(In reply to Sam James from comment #15) > I can build it now at least, let's take that as a win! I am glad it worked for you! :D