On Saturday, 23 March 2024 21:28:27 GMT Dale wrote: > Michael wrote: > > On Saturday, 23 March 2024 20:45:03 GMT Dale wrote:
> >> I saw where Peter mentioned in another thread gcc failing with no error > >> message for him. This could be related. A solution to this may help > >> more than just me. I'm not sure how to diagnose a failure when it gives > >> no real error. Heck, having a error sometimes isn't much help. :/ I > >> might add, the errors listed above didn't stop the compile until close > >> to the end. It did seem to ignore them since it compiled a good while > >> afterwards. I'm including in case those errors lead to the failure > >> later on. They could be nothing or may be a clue. > >> > >> Open to ideas. > >> > >> Dale > >> > >> :-) :-) > > > > Hmm ... my gcc is failing on one of my installations, with no error ... > > after it built successfully once already, as part of the initial > > toolchain update.> > > :-/ > > > > OK, I'm out of ideas too. May have to sleep on this and look at it again > > tomorrow. > > Nice to know I'm not alone. I forgot to mention, it wanted to update > glibc first. The news item said NOT to let it do that and use the > --nodeps option instead. So, the command I used had that option. I've > since restarted it, just in case it finishes. I'll post back if it > does. I find it odd that it builds fine one time but fails on others. > Strange things happen tho. > > Dale > > :-) :-) There's a new patch for gcc. You need to follow the guide as you did, then resync portage to fetch the latest ebuild for gcc, before you start the emerge --emptytree world. This is how I managed to get ggc to build after previous attempts with 'no error' failures. Hope this works for you.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
