Summary: | <dev-lang/ghc-6.8 does not work with gcc-4.2.0 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | SpanKY <vapier> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo's Haskell Language team <haskell> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | ac007, esigra |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | PPC | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 162167 | ||
Attachments: | dev-util:darcs-1.0.9:20070618-135130.log |
Description
SpanKY
2007-06-18 14:09:15 UTC
Created attachment 122412 [details]
dev-util:darcs-1.0.9:20070618-135130.log
What ghc version is this? dev-lang/ghc-bin-6.4.2 I suspect it is this upstream bug: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/1427 basically ghc doesn't like gcc-4.2.x yet. The workaround is to use gcc-4.1 or earlier. This will likely get fixed in ghc-6.8. This is now a very commonly reported bug. We've applied a workaround which is to disable using the ghc "split-objs" feature when using gcc-4.2. This has the downside that executables produced by ghc will be considerably larger than when the libraries are built with split-objs. *** Bug 186902 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to comment #5) > We've applied a workaround which is to disable using the ghc "split-objs" > feature when using gcc-4.2. It worked for me. The ebuild version is still ghc-6.6.1 but it has the fix and i have been able to compile dev-lang/ghc (that is emerge with '-binary'). > This has the downside that executables produced by > ghc will be considerably larger than when the libraries are built with > split-objs. As a side note, the emerge of previous ghc-6.4.2 took 1h36' while this ghc-6.6.1 took 2h27' on my PC. Thank you for the fix ! Upstream fix comminted, solution is to add -fno-toplevel-reorder when compiled with gcc-4.2.0 Closing as the workaround seems to be sufficient. It solves it for ghc-6.6.1 which is the current stable version. ghc-6.4.2 and earlier will still have the problem but we do not intend to fix the earlier versions, the workaround there is to use an older gcc. If anyone finds this is still a problem please reopen the bug. |