Hi,

The builders have crashed because of this.

In https://git.ipfire.org/?p=ipfire-2.x.git;a=commit;f=lfs/gcc;h=23164efba5f57b..., MAKETUNING was added again, but gcc does not support parallel builds.

Feel free to send a patch :)

-Michael

On 28 Apr 2020, at 15:11, Peter Müller peter.mueller@ipfire.org wrote:

Hello development folks,

this should not happen:

gcc (9.3.0) [ 1:33 ][ FAIL ]

g++ -no-pie -fomit-frame-pointer -O2 -pipe -Wall -fPIC -m64 -mindirect-branch=thunk -mfunction-return=thunk -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fstack-protector-strong -DIN_GCC -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute -Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -o cc1 c/c-lang.o c-family/stub-objc.o attribs.o c/c-errors.o c/c-decl.o c/c-typeck.o c/c-convert.o c/c-aux-info.o c/c-objc-common.o c/c-parser.o c/c-fold.o c/gimple-parser.o c-family/c-common.o c-family/c-cppbuiltin.o c-family/c-dump.o c-family/c-format.o c-family/c-gimplify.o c-family/c-indentation.o c-family/c-lex.o c-family/c-omp.o c-family/c-opts.o c-family/c-pch.o c-family/c-ppoutput.o c-family/c-pragma.o c-family/c-pretty-print.o c-family/c-semantics.o c-family/c-ada-spec.o c-family/c-ubsan.o c-family/known-headers.o c-family/c-attribs.o c-family/c-warn.o c-family/c-spellcheck.o i386-c.o glibc-c.o \ cc1-checksum.o libbackend.a main.o libcommon-target.a libcommon.a ../libcpp/libcpp.a ../libdecnumber/libdecnumber.a libcommon.a ../libcpp/libcpp.a ../libbacktrace/.libs/libbacktrace.a ../libiberty/libiberty.a ../libdecnumber/libdecnumber.a -lmpc -lmpfr -lgmp -rdynamic -ldl -L./../zlib -lz /usr/src/gcc-build/./gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc-build/./gcc/ -xc -nostdinc /dev/null -S -o /dev/null -fself-test=/usr/src/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/testsuite/selftests make[3]: /usr/src/gcc-build/./gcc/xgcc: Command not found make[3]: *** [/usr/src/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/c/Make-lang.in:124: s-selftest-c] Error 127 make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... /usr/src/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/gcc.c: In function 'long unsigned int get_random_number()': /usr/src/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/gcc.c:9639:12: warning: ignoring return value of 'ssize_t read(int, void*, size_t)', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] 9639 | read (fd, &ret, sizeof (HOST_WIDE_INT)); | ~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /usr/src/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/gcc.c: In function 'void do_report_bug(const char**, int, char**, char**)': /usr/src/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/gcc.c:6999:9: warning: ignoring return value of 'ssize_t write(int, const void*, size_t)', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] 6999 | write (fd, "\n//", 3); | ~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /usr/src/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/gcc.c:7002:13: warning: ignoring return value of 'ssize_t write(int, const void*, size_t)', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] 7002 | write (fd, " ", 1); | ~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~ /usr/src/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/gcc.c:7003:13: warning: ignoring return value of 'ssize_t write(int, const void*, size_t)', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] 7003 | write (fd, new_argv[i], strlen (new_argv[i])); | ~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /usr/src/gcc-9.3.0/gcc/gcc.c:7005:9: warning: ignoring return value of 'ssize_t write(int, const void*, size_t)', declared with attribute warn_unused_result [-Wunused-result] 7005 | write (fd, "\n\n", 2); | ~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ rm gcc.pod make[3]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-build/gcc' make[2]: *** [Makefile:4323: all-gcc] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-build' make[1]: *** [Makefile:956: all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-build' make: *** [gcc:230: /usr/src/log/gcc-9.3.0] Error 2

ERROR: Building gcc [ FAIL ] Check /home/pmu/devel/IPFire-development/ipfire-2.x/log/_build.base.log for errors if applicable [ FAIL ]

Second gcc build attempt seems to succeed, which is odd and smells a bit like Windows (have you tried turning it off and on again?)... :-/ Can anybody reproduce this on his/her x86_64 building machine?

Thanks, and best regards, Peter Müller