Toolchain problems [SOLVED]

addeman · Last edited by addeman on Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hi,

I recently decided to update my SunBlade 100. I started changing the profile to

JeliJami · Veteran Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 1086 Location: Belgium

first, here's some information on upgrading your profile:
Gentoo Upgrading Guide

but it states that the most recent (supported) profile is 2006.1, for sparc
maybe that's were you went wrong

_________________
Unanswered Post Initiative | Search | FAQ
Former username: davjel

Weeve · Retired Dev Joined: 30 Oct 2002 Posts: 641

This also maybe a result of using -fomit-frame-pointer in CFLAGS as that is not a suggested or supported CFLAG.

addeman · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject:

The CFLAG must be from my x86 experience, where it as i understand it is supported and suggested. I'll be sure to change it though.

How should i restart my upgrading? Should i reemerge the working versions from the packages i've made? How would i go about downgrading glibc? That is not supported, so if my glibc-2.5 is b0rked, what do i do?

I find it a bit strange that the 2007.0 profile is not supported, since according to packages.gentoo.org glibc-2.5 is marked stable on sparc, but the only way to get it is via the 2007.0 or dev profile...

I'll update as soon as i get new compile results. Thanks for the response.

Best regards
addeman

Weeve · Retired Dev Joined: 30 Oct 2002 Posts: 641

2007.0 is in the tree to help facilitate the work going towards the 2007.0 release. Until 2007.0 is actually released however, it is not supported (but if legitimate issues are found, please report to https://bugs.gentoo.org).

I'd suggest starting over with a clean stage. Also note that there are subprofiles under 2007.0 for desktop and server if those suit your needs.

gust4voz · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject:

Also -Os isn't overly tested for sparc64 with gcc4....
_________________
Gustavo Zacarias
Gentoo/SPARC monkey

addeman · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject:

gust4voz · Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject:

I tend to use CFLAGS="-mcpu=ultrasparc -mtune=ultrasparc -mvis -Wa,-Av8plusa -O2 -pipe" without side effects.
You can safely use ultrasparc3 if you have one too.
_________________
Gustavo Zacarias
Gentoo/SPARC monkey

likwid · n00b Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 40

I use v9 for my US3's in my blade 2000... what is the difference between using ultrasparc3 and v9, 64 bit binaries?

Weeve · Retired Dev Joined: 30 Oct 2002 Posts: 641

From a gcc perspective, nothing. However some programs assume things when they see v9 over ultrasparc3. Most commonly, a program may assume that v9 implies it can build 64 bit binaries (which a default Gentoo setup cannot do short of the kernel). Also sometimes when CFLAGS are filtered or adjusted in an ebuild, we don't always account for v9 (since we don't recommend it for use).

likwid · n00b Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 40

Shit... I built my whole gentoo system with v9, should I start over?

Weeve · Retired Dev Joined: 30 Oct 2002 Posts: 641

If nothing has failed to build so far, you're probably fine (assuming you don't still have a lot of packages to emerge). However using ultrasparc3 rather than v9 supposedly will provide you with binaries better optimized for the CPUs in a Blade 2000 than v9 would.

likwid · n00b Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 40

Well, seems udev won't work, thought it built fine so I doubt this is the problem. I will probably redo the system.

addeman · Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject:

I thought i give you an update:

First a warning, beware the mess a stage3 tarball can create if you're careless. This is what happend:
I reverted to the 2006.1 profile (supported and stable, i hope...). I then downloaded the stage3 tarball, which first did not untar. It complained about not being able to write

addeman · Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:59 pm Post subject:

A little update:

After sorting out the mess with the /var/db/pkg files i started updating my system again. I did a

addeman · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:33 am Post subject:

Hello again, a little update:

Somehow i got the toolchain properly built. I've done so a couple of times just to test. After that i've rebuilt all system packages, and then the toolchain again, and after that the whole world built. All packages built cleanly, yey!

Well now i needed to emerge mozilla-firefox, which crashed with:

addeman · Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject:

Finally, firefox compiled. I tried approx 20 times with the cflags suggested by gust4voz but it just would not compile. Always the same error, see previous posts. Somehow i started thinking and since the assembler seemed to be the problem i decided to change the CFLAGS concering the assembler, so now i have

addeman · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:01 am Post subject:

Yet another update: I was wrong as usual... The thing that made firefox not compile was the

Weeve · Retired Dev Joined: 30 Oct 2002 Posts: 641

Yes, VIS is specific to Sun's implementation of the SPARC specification.

addeman · Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject:

gust4voz · Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject:

Mozilla in general had issues with v9+ instructions in the past (as in builds but doesn't work).
Maybe it's fixed nowadays for ff-2.x.
In the odd department i've built almost everything with those CFLAGS just fine, including all the mozilla stuff.
Last ebuild that had issues was the previous net-snmp stable that passed the linker directives to perl which resulted obviously in the build puking, but i've not hit anything stable nowadays that complains about them.
_________________
Gustavo Zacarias
Gentoo/SPARC monkey

addeman · Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:55 am Post subject:

Ok, i can see why ultrasparc is filtered out then, thx. But just to satisfy my curiosity i'll try to build ff-2.0.0.2 with -mcpu=ultrasparc to what happens. If it works ill try with both -mcpu=ultrasparc and -mvis.

Update: ff did not build with -mcpu=ultrasparc. It failed with the same error as previous posts.

Best regards
addeman