Re: svn 260311 breaks gcc builds on releng9 ?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg_at_freebsd.org> wrote:

> Hello Luigi;
>
>
> On 17.01.2014 15:18, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I am seeing an odd problem which seems to be triggered by svn260311
>>
>> I have two machines running snapshots of stable/9 from last fall
>> (one 255898 sep.26, the other 258126 nov.14). All is amd64
>>
>> Build a recent head (260311 and newer) with gcc fails on the sep.26
>> machine:
>>
>>         ...
>>         19:51:22 ===> gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus (all)
>>         PROG CC       /media/bsd10/usr/home/luigi/
>> FreeBSD/head/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus/../../../../contrib/gcc/main.c
>>         ...
>>         PROG CC       /media/bsd10/usr/home/luigi/
>> FreeBSD/head/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus/../../../../contrib/gcc/cp/except.c
>>         parser.o: In function `cp_parser_objc_tentative_
>> protocol_refs_opt':
>>         parser.c:(.text+0x14665): undefined reference to
>> `cp_objc_protocol_id_list'
>>         *** [cc1plus-dummy] Error code 1
>>         1 error
>>
>> but works on the newer one.
>>
>> svn 260310 builds on both.
>>
>> I am a bit unclear on what is going on because the missing symbol
>> (cp_objc_protocol_id_list) only appears in the source file parser.c
>> and in a ChangeLog.apple file, so maybe it is generated and
>> the actual failure is at some earlier stage.
>>
> Thanks for the report.
>
> Of course gcc can also have bugs but it would look like you may not be
> doing a clean build or that some how object code from two different builds
> got mixed up.
>

i thought so too, but i am building in a completely new dir
and i retried some 10 times rm -rf on the output dir,
resyncing the repo and checking diffs, etc.

Also it is very suspicious that going back to 260310 makes
the problem disappear, and 260311 brings it back in.

Anyways, it is very confusing indeed.



> JIC, the cp_obj_protocol_id_list stuff is obviously objc stuff that we
> don't need at all and that crept in along with other changes from Apple so
> I will remove it to see if it helps somehow.
>

ok thanks.
let me know if you want me to test a patch before committing,
since I have a way to reproduce the error (i am not upgrading
the offending system on purpose).

cheers
luigi