[Arm-dev] Centos 7 - aarch64 gcc spec file bug

[Ed Brand]

I completely understand the ada bootstrap issues.  Thats why i went up instead of down. Ill do some tests rebuild under el7. Would be nice to get the ada bootstrap issues worked out

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 28, 2016, at 8:38 PM, Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 07/28/2016 04:17 PM, Ed Brand wrote:
>> Libatomic and libgnat from gcc-4.8.5-4 appear not to be built on
>> aarch64. How to file bug?  See below from spec:
> 
> Bugs can be filed at bugs.centos.org
> 
>> Summary: Various compilers (C, C++, Objective-C, Java, ...)
>> Name: gcc
>> %if 0%{?rhel} == 7
>> %global gcc_version 4.8.2
>> %else
>> %global gcc_version 4.8.5
>> %endif
>> Version: 4.8.5
>> Release: %{gcc_release}%{?dist}
>> ...
>> ( Missing aarch64 )
>> v
>> %ifarch %{ix86} x86_64 ppc ppc64 ppc64le ppc64p7 s390 s390x aarch64 %{arm}
>> %global build_libatomic 1
>> 
>> 
>> I did a smoke test and was able to bootstrap both using f21 aarch64.
>> Have the rpms if needed.
> 
> 
> Some of the gcc bits I had patched out of the initial gcc build, because
> of the lack of early support and/or bootstrap pain (primarily ada and
> related bits).
> 
> Unfortunately building against f21 can potentially cause issues with
> gcc/glibc artifacts because of the newer glibc/gcc included in fedora.
> 
> When we did the initial port/build for this, we had to start from f19
> aarch64 builds and work up from there because of this. If you can
> (re)build against the el7 aarch64 build, that will give you a better
> result. I'll poke it tomorrow.
> 
> -- 
> Jim Perrin
> The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
> twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77
> _______________________________________________
> Arm-dev mailing list
> Arm-dev at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev