Summary: | Incompatibility between glibc and gcc? | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Tor Hovland <tor> |
Component: | [OLD] GCC Porting | Assignee: | Please assign to toolchain <gcc-porting> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | major | CC: | dhp_gentoo |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | 1.4_rc1 | ||
Hardware: | x86 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Tor Hovland
2003-01-13 02:54:21 UTC
Try -r7 please. You mean gcc-3.2.1-r7? I've tried that now, and it still fails after several hours. I had to upgrade to gcc-config-1.3.1 first. /var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/build/gcc/xgcc -B/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1- r7/work/build/gcc/ -B/usr/i586-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/i586-pc-linux- gnu/lib/ -isystem /usr/i586-pc-linux-gnu/include -c -DSkip_f2c_Undefs -I. - I/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/gcc-3.2.1/libf2c/libU77 - I/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/gcc-3.2.1/libf2c/libU77/../libI77 -I.. - I/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/gcc-3.2.1/libf2c/libU77/.. - DHAVE_CONFIG_H -O2 -march=i586 -pipe /var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/gcc- 3.2.1/libf2c/libU77/alarm_.c -o alarm_.o >/dev/null 2>&1 /var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/build/gcc/xgcc -B/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1- r7/work/build/gcc/ -B/usr/i586-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/i586-pc-linux- gnu/lib/ -isystem /usr/i586-pc-linux-gnu/include -c -DSkip_f2c_Undefs -I. - I/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/gcc-3.2.1/libf2c/libU77 - I/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/gcc-3.2.1/libf2c/libU77/../libI77 -I.. - I/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/gcc-3.2.1/libf2c/libU77/.. - DHAVE_CONFIG_H -O2 -march=i586 -pipe /var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/gcc- 3.2.1/libf2c/libU77/datetime_.c -o datetime_.o >/dev/null 2>&1 rm -f ../s-libu77.T ../s-libu77 objs='VersionU.lo gerror_.lo perror_.lo ierrno_.lo itime_.lo time_.lo unlink_.lo fnum_.lo getpid_.lo getuid_.lo getgid_.lo kill_.lo rand_.lo srand_.lo irand_.lo sleep_.lo idate_.lo ctime_.lo etime_.lo dtime_.lo isatty_.lo ltime_.lo fstat_.lo stat_.lo lstat_.lo access_.lo link_.lo getlog_.lo ttynam_.lo getcwd_.lo symlnk_.lo vxttime_.lo vxtidate_.lo gmtime_.lo fdate_.lo secnds_.lo bes.lo dbes.lo chdir_.lo chmod_.lo lnblnk_.lo hostnm_.lo rename_.lo fgetc_.lo fputc_.lo umask_.lo sys_clock_.lo date_.lo second_.lo flush1_.lo mclock_.lo alarm_.lo datetime_.lo'; for name in $objs; do \ echo libU77/${name} >> ../s-libu77.T; done mv ../s-libu77.T ../s-libu77 make[3]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/build/i586-pc- linux-gnu/libf2c/libU77' make[2]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/build/i586-pc- linux-gnu/libf2c' make[1]: *** [all-target-libf2c] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/gcc-3.2.1-r7/work/build' make: *** [bootstrap-lean] Error 2 !!! ERROR: sys-devel/gcc-3.2.1-r7 failed. !!! Function src_compile, Line 293, Exitcode 2 !!! (no error message) Had the same problem with compiling gcc-3.2.1-r7 while attemtping to fix http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15391 No idea why it was happening. Then I went to another computer and ssh'd into the box and it compiled fine. Your guess is as good as mine. It happened several times and over several reboots before I ssh'd in. Doug, if my guess is as good as yours, I'm guessing this is hardware related. Could be memory timings or something like that, and recompiling gcc and glibc is pretty much the only thing demanding enough to actually knock out the machine. Mine is an old Compaq Prolinea 5120, and there seems to be no way to adjust those settings on it. Perhaps, after enough attempts, I'll be able to get a lucky run, like you did. Well, I decided to give it another go, hoping that I could have the same luck as Doug. And it worked. I was able to emerge gcc-3.2.1-r6. I haven't changed any hardware, or done anything to any settings. When this bug was opened, I had already tried several times with no luck. This time it worked on the first attempt in several weeks. Resolving as FIXED, as the final comment indicates as such. *** Bug 138330 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to comment #7) > *** Bug 138330 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** > That was a mistake/typo; he meant to mark 138330 as dup of 138329, not 13829. Sorry. |