On 20.03.2016 11:03, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Sun, 20 Mar 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >>>>>>> So I looked for a way to disable the asm code, and found it can be >>>>>>> done, but differently than for in-tree gmp. See the attached patch. >>> >>> As noted in PR 67728, it seems that gcc's intrusive way of overriding >>> CFLAGS also breaks GMP itself, not just MPFR, by hiding the macro NO_ASM >>> that GMP tries to define through its own CFLAGS. So maybe Bernd's patch >>> should be duplicated to also apply to GMP? >> >> I agree, the question is only when. Passing -DNO_ASM in AM_CFLAGS would >> just define NO_ASM twice for GMP-4.3.2 which would not make any problems >> and fix the mis-compilation of GMP-6.1.0. That might be possible in >> stage4 if you like. > > It is confusing that we are using the same names for stages in the > release cycle and stages in bootstrap, for a bit I couldn't understand > why this would only apply to that extra bootstrap stage :-( > > I don't know if I *want* us to go there and pass -DNO_ASM, I think I'd > rather have gcc call plain "make" without a gazillion variables > appended, but if people care about those PRs, I am guessing that this > would be less intrusive. >
I think the in-tree build uses different CFLAGS for each bootstrap-stage, and there is a good reason for that. Not every package would work in-tree, it needs co-operation and good will from both sides, in general it does not work at all (e.g. in-tree flex). Bernd.
