<offlist> Re: C compiler cannot create executables

[Joel Sherrill]

Ralf... do you still feel like 4.7.1 is justified based on this thread?

Just checking.

--joel

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 09:42 -0700, Amalaye Oyake wrote:
>   
>> Hello Joel (and thanks Ralf for some of the tips),
>>
>> I will be very detailed so this can be referenced by others ... I
>> was trying to build RTEMS on a 64bit machine running Ubuntu Edgy
>> ... there were various issues, but I worked around them. I did
>> two things (there were two issues) ... had to install Ubuntu
>> 32bit and installed an updated automake.
>>     
> Hmm, this doesn't seem right to me.
>
> You shouldn't have to install a 32bit Ubuntu nor a 32bit native GCC.
>
> Wrt. to autoconf and automake, RTEMS-4.7.x requires
> autoconf >= 2.60 and automake >= 1.10
>
>   
>> Thus I did away with my 64bit Ubuntu (no negative impact to me)
>> and went 'backwards' with 32bit Ubuntu. The problem seems to be
>> more of a gcc issue.
>>     
> Well, there are at least two issues I am aware about.
>
> 1. there is a bug in rtems-4.7.1 which causes some parts of the sources
> tree to receive bogus CFLAGS.
>
> Affected are the powerpc mvme162 BSPs and the pc386-based BSPs on all
> host plattforms. The pc386-BSPs only do not show on ix86-platforms,
> because the bogus CFLAGS being used also (by random accident) also are
> valid on i386 plattforms.
>
> 2. Some Debian based native GCCs are reported (Repeatedly reported for
> amd64-Debian) to contain a bug related to multilib's (i.e. -m32/-64). 
>
>   
>>  64bit Ubuntu Edgy does not ship with a
>> 'multilib' gcc. Thus if you are compiling things like Wine and
>> RTEMS on a 64bit machine you could have this problem ... perhaps
>> someone more knowledgeable on multilib and compiler stuff can
>> expand on this.
>>     
> RTEMS (except of the posix bsp) is independent of a host's multilibs.
>
>   
>> Furthermore when checking out of cvs the bootstrap script
>> requires automake/autoconf = latest_version. Ubuntu as a whole
>> ships with a very very old automake (something like version 1.4)
>>     
>
> Really?!? I hardly can believe this - 1.4 is dead and unmaintained for 5
> or 6 years. This alone would be sufficient reason not to be wanting to
> use these distros.
>
> However, you can easily work around this issue by installing autoconf
> and automake to an alternative prefix from the tarballs (We are using
> vanilla FSF sources=
>
>   
>> Otherwise, with the necessary adjustments 4.7.0 compiled just fine! 
>>
>> If you 'have' to be in a 64bit world chroot may be a work-around
>> ... but sometimes being on the bleeding edge just makes you bleed
>> unnecessarily... 
>>     
>
> Bleeding edge? Sorry, the tools aren't bleeding edge. They are the
> official stable versions.
>
> Ralf
>
>
>
>