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