On 06.01.20 14:29, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 06.01.20 13:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: >> On 06.01.20 11:03, Andrew Pinski wrote: >>> +GCC >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:52 AM Matthias Klose <d...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> In an archive test rebuild with binutils and GCC trunk, I see a lot of >>>> build >>>> failures on both aarch64-linux-gnu and arm-linux-gnueabihf failing with >>>> "multiple definition of symbols" when linking executables, e.g. >>> >>> THIS IS NOT A BINUTILS OR GCC BUG. >>> GCC changed the default to -fno-common. >>> It seems like for some reason, your non-aarch64/arm builds had changed >>> the default back to being with -fcommon turned on. >> >>> what would that be? I'm not aware of any active change doing that. >>> Packages >>> build on x86, ppc64el and s390x at least. >> >> Well if you want to build old archived code using latest GCC then you may >> need to >> force -fcommon just like you need to add many warning disables. Maybe you >> were >> using an older GCC for the other targets? As Andrew notes, this isn't >> Arm-specific. > > found out about why. Started the test rebuild with trunk 20191219, then gave > back all build failures yesterday with trunk 20200104.
hmm, no. that change was made on November 20, not December 20 (r278509). So why do I see these only on ARM32 and AArch64? > And I saw most of the > armhf/arm64 ftbfs when I retriggered failing builds. To get consistent > results > I should finish that test rebuild with the -fno-common change reverted. > > However, this is an undocumented change in the current NEWS, and seeing > literally hundreds of package failures, I doubt that's the right thing to do, > at > least without any deprecation warning first. Could that be handled, > deprecating > in GCC 10 first, and the changing that for GCC 11? > > Matthias >
