This appears to be a reincarnation of https://sft.its.cern.ch/jira/browse/ROOT-7639 . If adding a flag such as "-mabm" to CXXFLAGS, root fails in the allDict phase: ------------------------------- ./bin/rootcling -rootbuild -1 -f allDict.cxx -noDictSelection -c -D__CLING__ -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -DROOT_PCH -fsigned-char -I./include -I./etc -I./etc/dictpch -I./etc/cling -I/usr/include -I/usr/in clude/freetype2 -I/usr/include/graphviz -I/usr/include/libAfterImage -I/usr/include/libxml2 -I/usr/include/python3.6m -I/usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/numpy/core/include -std=c++14 -fsigned-char -m64 -ggdb -pthread -DS YSTEM_TYPE_unix -pipe -mabm -march=broadwell -Wno-implicit-fallthrough -I/var/tmp/portage/sci-physics/root-6.14.06/work/root-6.14.06_build/include etc/dictpch/allHeaders.h etc/dictpch/allLinkDefs.h error: unknown argument: '-mabm' make[2]: *** [CMakeFiles/onepcm.dir/build.make:65: etc/allDict.cxx.pch] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory '/var/tmp/portage/sci-physics/root-6.14.06/work/root-6.14.06_build' make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/Makefile2:475: CMakeFiles/onepcm.dir/all] Error 2 make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... ------------------------------- This was not observed in older versions, which are sadly all dropped from portage.
> This was not observed in older versions, which are sadly all dropped from portage. In which version did it work for you? Also, I can be more flexible in keeping some older versions in tree if you think that's a good idea.
(In reply to Guilherme Amadio from comment #1) > > This was not observed in older versions, which are sadly all dropped from portage. > > In which version did it work for you? It worked fine for me with 6.14.02, 6.14.04-r2, 6.14.04-r3 at least (probably older ones too). Of course, I only tested with -mabm in my case. > Also, I can be more flexible in > keeping some older versions in tree if you think that's a good idea. I think keeping 1-2 versions would be good to allow for regression-testing by users, unless it is too much work to perform "breaking" changes to all versions you are keeping active. At least, keeping the version before the latest one would be much appreciated ;-).
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=86d74763869855375cf01782bc78d5f4dc3fef72 commit 86d74763869855375cf01782bc78d5f4dc3fef72 Author: Guilherme Amadio <amadio@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2018-12-11 12:28:30 +0000 Commit: Guilherme Amadio <amadio@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2018-12-12 07:11:01 +0000 sci-physics/root: keep a few more old versions Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/671810 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.52, Repoman-2.3.12 Signed-off-by: Guilherme Amadio <amadio@gentoo.org> sci-physics/root/Manifest | 2 + sci-physics/root/root-6.12.06-r8.ebuild | 313 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ sci-physics/root/root-6.14.06-r2.ebuild | 323 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 638 insertions(+)
Alright, I added back the last 6.12 and one more patch release for 6.14. I also did a git bisect and found the commit that caused this bug (see ROOT-7639 linked above). I will apply a fix soon.
Dear Guilherme, many thanks! And all the best with the fix, it might be worthwhile to integrate a test with an unhandled flag (such as -mabm) in ROOTs test suite in the future, once the fix is also applied upstream ;-). Cheers and all the best, Oliver
This is really an upstream bug. Unfortunately, the commit that started causing this fixed a real issue, so I couldn't just revert it for Gentoo. I updated the upstream ticket and raised the priority to try to get this resolved sooner.
*** Bug 690022 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Not sure if this is a good idea (maybe mgorny can chime in, he's for sure the expert here): Since you depend on llvm / clang anyways, you could do something like: CHOSEN_CC=${CC} CHOSEN_CXX=${CXX} CC=${CHOST}-clang CXX=${CHOST}-clang++ strip-unsupported-flags CC=$[CHOSEN_CC} CXX=$[CHOSEN_CXX} strip-unsupported-flags is from flag-o-matic. Of course, that also strips flags for the non-rootcling calls, so it would be better to do something like that upstream. I'll add a comment suggesting that to the upstream ticket.
I'm closing this as ROOT 6.14 is no longer in the tree and both 6.20 and 6.22 have this issue fixed upstream. See https://sft.its.cern.ch/jira/browse/ROOT-7639.
Yes, indeed, I can fully confirm :-). Thanks again!
*** Bug 739306 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 742926 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
