Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:23:13 -0700 From: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> To: rpokala@mac.com, David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libstdc++ build failures on MIPS, PowerPC, Sparc Message-ID: <995425D0-1240-4008-8BF7-982C7725353C@dsl-only.net> In-Reply-To: <1652170A-4809-4C0C-AA9D-3C364EA3866B@FreeBSD.org> References: <A0C428BE-B7CB-493F-BBC6-FECB2166F5DF@dsl-only.net> <1652170A-4809-4C0C-AA9D-3C364EA3866B@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2017-Jul-24, at 12:03 AM, David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> =
wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2017, at 23:54, Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> wrote:
>>=20
>>> c++ -isystem ${OUTDIR}/tmp/usr/include/c++/v1 -std=3Dc++11 =
-nostdinc++ -isystem ${OUTDIR}/tmp/usr/include -L${OUTDIR}/tmp/usr/lib =
-B${OUTDIR}/tmp/usr/lib --sysroot=3D${OUTDIR}/tmp =
-B${OUTDIR}/tmp/usr/bin -O -pipe -G0 -EB -mabi=3D32 -msoft-float =
-DIN_GLIBCPP_V3 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I${SRCDIR}/gnu/lib/libstdc++ =
-I${SRCDIR}/contrib/libstdc++/libsupc++ -I${SRCDIR}/contrib/gcc =
-I${SRCDIR}/contrib/libstdc++/include =
-I${SRCDIR}/contrib/gcclibs/include =
-I${SRCDIR}/contrib/libstdc++/include -I. =
-frandom-seed=3DRepeatabilityConsideredGood -fno-implicit-templates =
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Wno-deprecated -c =
${SRCDIR}/contrib/libstdc++/src/bitmap_allocator.cc -o =
bitmap_allocator.o
>=20
> This is quite a surprising build command. It=E2=80=99s using =
usr/include/c++/v1 for system includes, but usr/include/c++/v1 is the =
libc++ header directory. libstdc++ shouldn=E2=80=99t need to be built =
with C++11 support, but libc++ does, so this command looks like a =
combination of both libc++ and libstdc++ build flags all mashed =
together.
I see that when I forwarded Ravi Pokala's message to other
lists that seemed appropriate --where it was more likely
to be noticed-- I forgot to CC Ravi.
I fix this now by listing him in the To for this reply.
As for the command: I expect that the weird mix is the
essence of what Ravi P. was reporting, going along with
the -std=3Dc++11 command line option that was explicitly
rejected by the compiler.
I have not yet tried a gcc 4.2.1 based build for powerpc64
or powerpc yet. (I tend to experiment with clang support
of them.) But I will at some point and see if I get a similar
issue.
=3D=3D=3D
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?995425D0-1240-4008-8BF7-982C7725353C>