The relevant bits from the config.log appear to be: >>> Configuring source in /var/tmp/portage/app-office/libreoffice-7.1.5.2/work/libreoffice-7.1.5.2 ... * Preset CFLAGS: -O2 -march=i686 -pipe * Preset LDFLAGS: -Wl,-Ol -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-fuse-ld=bfd * Enforcing the use of clang due to USE=clang ... * Used CFLAGS: -O2 -march=i686 -pipe * Used LDFLAGS: -Wl,-Ol -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-fuse-ld=bfd -fuse-ld=lld ... and: checking for explicit LDFLAGS... -Wl,-Ol -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-fuse-ld=bfd -fuse-ld=lld checking for i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc... i686-pc-linux-gnu-clang checking whether the C compiler works... no configure: error: in `/var/tmp/portage/app-office/libreoffice-7.1.5.2/work/libreoffice-7.1.5.2': configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables Looking at my binutils-libs, which appears to be where the bfd linker option would come from, we see it's apparently only supported in 64-bit OS versions. I'm running x86. So, it would appear libreoffice in this version has a hard dependency on 64-bit? [I] sys-libs/binutils-libs Available versions: 2.34-r2(0/2.34) 2.35.2(0/2.35.2) 2.36.1-r2(0/2.36.1) 2.37_p1(0/2.37) {64-bit-bfd cet multitarget nls static-libs ABI_MIPS="n32 n64 o32" ABI_S390="32 64" ABI_X86="32 64 x32"} Installed versions: 2.37_p1(0/2.37)(02:10:59 PM 10/09/2021)(multitarget nls -64-bit-bfd -cet -static-libs ABI_MIPS="-n32 -n64 -o32" ABI_S390="-32 -64" ABI_X86="32 -64 -x32") Homepage: https://sourceware.org/binutils/ Description: Core binutils libraries (libbfd, libopcodes, libiberty) for external packages Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. emerge -u @world 2. 3.
Created attachment 745899 [details] Build log
Created attachment 745902 [details] config.log
Created attachment 745905 [details] emerge --info
Created attachment 745908 [details] emerge -pqv
Created attachment 745911 [details] environment
Created attachment 745914 [details] binutils and binutils-libs installed USE settings
You seem to have a typo in your LDFLAGS: -Wl,-Ol -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-fuse-ld=bfd ^ should be a 1
> ld.lld: error: -Ol: number expected, but got 'l' As Stehphan indicates, this appears to be a typo in your LDFLAGS.
The typo in LDFLAGS was legit. However, that had nothing to do with the error logged in the config.log, nor was it the cause of the error emitted "C compiler cannot create executables," even when the typo was corrected the same error resulted. Commenting out my LDFLAGS setting in /etc/portage/make.conf gets me past the error. But to be clear - the error was not due to the typo noted in the comments made to this bug ID.
Please attach a new config.log with corrected LDFLAGS.
(In reply to Willard Dawson from comment #9) Oh, I see. Your LDFLAGS have *two* mistakes. > ld.lld: error: unknown argument '-fuse-ld=bfd' Having "-Wl,-fuse-ld=bfd" is nonsensical. That's a flag for the compiler front-end, not the linker.
