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

Thu Sep 1 19:46:21 UTC 2016
Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org>

I haven't looked at the armhfp bits, no. We'll likely try to make a
bigger push for this sort of thing around the 7.3 timeframe to line it
all up. We'll see how that works.

On 08/20/2016 08:08 AM, Ed Brand wrote:
> Awesome, i just updated to it. Many thanks.
> 
> Any one  looking at the armhfp branch for consistency?  If you need help
> I can do the same for it.  Let me know, don't want to duplicate any
> efforts..all i ask is some kudos in the changelog ;)
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/09/2016 11:15 AM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>> Just as a follow-up on this, I'm cycling through the build for it now
>> and you should see this pushed as an update in the next day or so.
>>
>> On 07/31/2016 06:16 PM, Ed Brand wrote:
>>> SUCCESS!!!
>>>
>>> What a PITA.  I did hit the glibc artifact issue, ended up building a
>>> complete cross-compiled gcc-4.9 toolchain for Centos7 x86_64. gcc-4.8 is
>>> just not happy being cross-compiled.
>>>
>>> I did a write up and uploaded everything to the below link if you want
>>> to give it a go, or repeat for arm32 port. Basically followed the f21
>>> stage 1 port docs to get it bootstrapped.  I would like to see this in
>>> the main distro.   Do you need a bug filed?
>>>
>>> http://arm.brandint.com/centos7/aarch64/bootstrap/Centos7-AARCH64-CrossCompiler.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> -Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/28/2016 08:38 PM, Jim Perrin 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.
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Arm-dev mailing list
>>> Arm-dev at centos.org
>>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Arm-dev mailing list
> Arm-dev at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/arm-dev

-- 
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77