> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, Ken Cunningham wrote: > > > building i386, gcc 5,6,7,8 misconfigures when our "as" redirects it to > > clang for assembly, following our hack in cctools to do that. the gcc > > build then fails. > > > > I have not so far been able to overcome this other than: > > > > 1. deactivating all clangs 5+ prior to the build, to get the old gas > > > > or > > > > 2. defaulting gcc to use --with-as=/usr/bin/as > > > > Having the built gcc forever use /usr/bin/as as assembler would be > > awful, so option 1 looks better than 2. but ugh. > > > > I tried many things. gcc is complicated to build when you want it to do > > non-standard stuff. There may be some way to make it work...pls chime > > in...but I have likely tried it. > > You don't make it clear whether this is solely about building gcc itself, > or about building things *with* gcc.
building gcc itself. I assume you have tried recently. It's been broken since the cctools assembler hack went in, AFAICT. > > The "forever" might just be "until there's a better solution", and it's > hard to see how option 2 would be more awful than creating yet another "X > can't build while Y is active" abomination. If we build gcc to default to use /usr/bin/as then all those i386's are forever sent to that truly ancient assembler. That is pretty awful -- who knows how many things will break doing that. It won't even accept the -Q flag. At least if we conflicts-build it, once it is built (a minor inconvenience for the systems we're talking about, (10.4 i386, 10.5 i386, and 10.6 i386), it will use /opt/local/bin/as, which is current, and also can redirect to clang for fancier assemblage (that usually works still). > > Fred Wright Fred, you might have built gcc once or twice I suspect. Give an i386 build a try and see if you can come up with something. I don't love this plan either. K
