Arch Linux

andrej.podzimek · 2006-01-21 04:47:17

Hello everybody! I badly need a piece of advice on ABS. I decided to compile the current version of gcc using the ABS (just for fun ). Unfortunately, it failed for some reason.

If I understand it well, an older version of GCC is compiled first, so that the newer one can be compiled. All went well until the second ./configure procedure started. It ended up saying that gcc (the one created in /var/abs/base/gcc/...) could not make executables. This was true. When I tried to launch it by hand (with a dummy source file), it claimed it could not find the cc1 executable. Nnothing amazing, for the cc1 was in the same directory, so there was no chance to find it somewhere in $PATH. I created a symlink to cc1 in /bin. (Such an approach is certainly incorrect and might lead to unpredictable behaviour... I know.) However, the makepkg failed again with the same error message.

I guess the problem is a little bit more complex. Some other executables are certainly needed. Unfortunately, the ./configure script did not show any details. I did not use any special compiler flags, the only change to the default settings was -pentium-m instead of -i686. What could have happened? Either I did something wrong or something is missing on my machine.

Please give me a hint if you know how to sort this out.

andrej.podzimek · 2006-01-30 10:36:21

Please... Come on, the package in the repository must have been created somehow. How do you guys build the GCC?

Beavis · 2006-01-30 11:00:20

I have found that compiling GCC with any parameter other than -i686 will result in failure, i've tried compiling for pentium 3, pentium 4 and Athlon-xp and every time it has failed, it only seems to compile successfully with the -i686 parameter

the default PKGBUILD should work fine so long as you don't change any compiler flags, and do make sure your /etc/makepkg.conf is configured as default. Specifically the two lines that read "export CFLAGS="-march="i686 -O2 -pipe" and "export CXXFLAGS="-march="i686 -O2 -pipe" these options must be set to compile GCC or it just doesn't work.

andrej.podzimek · 2006-01-30 11:38:03

You're right, it does work with the default parameters. This implies that there's no reason to compile the GCC on my own. What I obtain is a packge identical to the one in the repository. I thought the optimization for my CPU could reduce compile time significantly, by 1% or so. Thanks for your advice anyway.

AndyRTR · 2006-01-30 11:38:15

Beavis wrote:

I have found that compiling GCC with any parameter other than -i686 will result in failure, ...

Are you sure :?:

AndyRTR, who's porting Arch64

andrej.podzimek · 2006-01-30 11:44:28

I bet you had to make more changes than I did. How did you compile it?

AndyRTR · 2006-01-30 12:00:49

No major changes needed. First we had to crosscompile the gcc itself. Now we can go for updates like this:

http://www.arch64.org/svn/trunk/current … kup&rev=66

Beavis · 2006-01-30 14:04:35

@ andrej

This implies that there's no reason to compile the GCC on my own. What I obtain is a packge identical to the one in the repository

I know, thats why I don't bother compiling gcc anymore I just grab it from the repository. It would be great to get gcc compiled and optimised for my athlon-xp though because it's currently the only package that hasn't been recompiled on my system.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-01-21 04:47:17

GCC

#2 2006-01-30 10:36:21

Re: GCC

#3 2006-01-30 11:00:20

Re: GCC

#4 2006-01-30 11:38:03

Re: GCC

#5 2006-01-30 11:38:15

Re: GCC

#6 2006-01-30 11:44:28

Re: GCC

#7 2006-01-30 12:00:49

Re: GCC

#8 2006-01-30 14:04:35

Re: GCC

Board footer