Upgrade to GCC 4.9.1 #17169

vbraun · 2014-10-17T17:21:12Z

ftp://ftp.mirrorservice.org/sites/sourceware.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-4.9.1/gcc-4.9.1.tar.bz2

Upstream: Reported upstream. No feedback yet.

CC: @jpflori

Component: packages: standard

Keywords: yosemite

Author: Volker Braun

Branch: e16d2ae

Reviewer: R. Andrew Ohana, Jeroen Demeyer, François Bissey

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17169

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

vbraun · 2014-10-17T19:46:29Z

Branch: u/vbraun/upgrade_to_gcc_4_8_3

vbraun · 2014-10-17T19:53:06Z

comment:2

Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/asan.o differs
gcc/c/c-decl.o differs
gcc/cfg.o differs
gcc/coverage.o differs
gcc/cp/class.o differs
gcc/cp/semantics.o differs
gcc/cp/tree.o differs
gcc/dse.o differs
gcc/java/jcf-io.o differs
gcc/objc/objc-act.o differs
gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.o differs
gcc/tree-ssa-coalesce.o differs
gcc/tree-ssa-pre.o differs
gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.o differs
gcc/valtrack.o differs
make[5]: *** [compare] Error 1
make[4]: *** [stage3-bubble] Error 2
make[3]: *** [all] Error 2

The files are indeed different, but after I strip them then they are identical. So its something wonky in the debug info...

New commits:

`86b8ba0`	`Update to gcc-4.8.3, add OSX 10.10 patch`

vbraun · 2014-10-17T19:53:06Z

Commit: 86b8ba0

kiwifb · 2014-10-18T01:30:54Z

comment:3

Fails just the same way on 10.9 so it is not the OS version at fault. The only thing I can think of is that the requirement for building gcc 4.8+ have been raised (that's not hypothetical, it is a fact) but I would be surprised if

the clang shipped was insufficient. That would be a well known problem
surely it would break before stage 3

kiwifb · 2014-10-18T03:07:14Z

comment:4

So I bootstrapped this with gcc 4.7.3 from sage 6.4.beta5 and it worked so
Replying to @kiwifb:

Fails just the same way on 10.9 so it is not the OS version at fault. The only thing I can think of is that the requirement for building gcc 4.8+ have been raised (that's not hypothetical, it is a fact) but I would be surprised if

the clang shipped was insufficient. That would be a well known problem

Apparently that's the case.

surely it would break before stage 3

What do I know?

jdemeyer · 2014-10-18T04:48:08Z

comment:5

What happens is that GCC builds stage 2 with debug symbols, stage 3 without debug symbols. Then GCC checks that the code is identical using some tools from binutils. This checks are indeed broken on some systems.

The line in spkg-install

# Disable bootstrap-debug, since it doesn't work on an OS X 10.4 PPC
# machine, nor on some Solaris machine. bootstrap-debug only does
# additional checks during the build, so it is safe not to use it.
MAKE="$MAKE BUILD_CONFIG="

is supposed to disable that, but apparently this disabling no longer works.

jdemeyer · 2014-10-18T04:51:00Z

comment:6

GCC 4.8 requires a C++ compiler, so this ticket needs changes to the installation guide, to build/install and to $SAGE_ROOT/configure.ac.

ohanar · 2014-10-18T05:57:03Z

comment:7

Replying to @jdemeyer:

The line in spkg-install
...
is supposed to disable that, but apparently this disabling no longer works.

It seems that this line is the culprit in this case, somehow disabling bootstrap-debug (if this is still actually disabling it) is now breaking the build.

vbraun · 2014-10-18T09:37:11Z

comment:8

Replying to @jdemeyer:

What happens is that GCC builds stage 2 with debug symbols, stage 3 without debug symbols.

The object files from stage 2 and 3 have the same size for me. That is, before stripping the size is the same, after stripping the size is the same, but stripping reduces the size. They compare identical after stripping. The difference is not in something that is human-readable (at least not to me ;-)

kiwifb · 2014-10-18T09:38:56Z

comment:9

Confirmed. I tried a few things but I completely missed that line. That takes my number 2 spot in the "configuration option that leads to a build of gcc to fail" [my number one spot can be summarised with "it fails in stage 1 when I change the installation prefix (yes I mean --prefix=...)"].

I am relieved that clang++ is enough to build gcc 4.8+.

vbraun · 2014-10-18T10:32:15Z

comment:10

I can build gcc 4.9.1 so I suggest we go for that. I'm using it on my desktop daily (Fedora 21 alpha)

vbraun · 2014-10-18T11:01:50Z

Changed branch from u/vbraun/upgrade_to_gcc_4_8_3 to u/vbraun/upgrade_to_gcc_4_9_1

kiwifb · 2014-10-18T11:20:06Z

comment:12

Why not going to 4.9.x was one of the question I had when first seeing the ticket. For reference the bug for building on yosemite on gcc's bugzilla. The fix is merged in trunk along with a couple of other stuff that we probably don't care much about, but it will be in 4.9.2 and 5.0. I think this is ready for review.

New commits:

`8eb5fe4`	`Update to gcc 4.9.1`

kiwifb · 2014-10-18T11:20:06Z

Changed commit from 86b8ba0 to 8eb5fe4

vbraun · 2014-10-18T12:10:51Z

Changed keywords from none to yosemite

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-18T13:19:59Z

Changed commit from 8eb5fe4 to bee1a24

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-18T13:19:59Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

`0c000b4`	`Update documentation that we need a C++ compiler`
`7672943`	`Check for C++ compiler`
`bee1a24`	`Look at C++ compiler to decide whether to install gcc`

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-18T19:24:14Z

Changed commit from bee1a24 to 2fc95e7

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-18T19:24:14Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

`2fc95e7`	`Evil workaround for broken OSX system header`

kiwifb · 2014-10-18T19:41:23Z

comment:16

Replying to @sagetrac-git:

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

`2fc95e7`	`Evil workaround for broken OSX system header`

I think you forgot a bit in that commit. A destination file.

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-18T19:52:37Z

Changed commit from 2fc95e7 to 38a826a

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-18T19:52:37Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

`38a826a`	`Evil workaround for broken OSX system header`

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-18T19:53:17Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

`f62f6c3`	`Evil workaround for broken OSX system header`

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-18T19:53:17Z

Changed commit from 38a826a to f62f6c3

jpflori · 2014-10-29T15:15:19Z

comment:77

To choose which languages to support sure, but I remember we also removed other things.
Don't have time for looking into that now.

I've put a stripped down tarball at:

http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/jpflori/upstream/gcc-4.9.1.tar.bz2

New commits:

`40528eb`	`Various fixes for GCC installation, remove deprecated sage_fortran script`

jpflori · 2014-10-29T15:15:19Z

Changed commit from afa9541 to 40528eb

vbraun · 2014-10-29T15:17:05Z

comment:78

Presumably the checksum is different

jpflori · 2014-10-29T15:38:24Z

comment:79

Hopefully yes, and if it gets used, the spkg-src script should be put back.

vbraun · 2014-10-29T16:09:55Z

comment:80

IMHO this is not a "lets also beautify this script" ticket, right now Sage is broken on one of the main supported platforms. This ticket fixes it. If you want further changes feel free to open another ticket.

jdemeyer · 2014-10-29T16:18:17Z

comment:81

Replying to @vbraun:

IMHO this is not a "lets also beautify this script" ticket, right now Sage is broken on one of the main supported platforms. This ticket fixes it. If you want further changes feel free to open another ticket.

It's not about beautifying any script, just about the decision whether or not to use it.

vbraun · 2014-10-29T16:25:59Z

comment:82

If you want to do things different then go ahead. I just don't think that pushing a broken branch in hopes that somedbody else will fix it for you is a good way to making progress here.

jdemeyer · 2014-10-29T16:28:31Z

comment:83

I'm confused. Are you refering to the removal of sage_fortran? Technically, that should be a new ticket, but it's a totally trivial/obvious thing so I thought you wouldn't mind.

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-29T16:29:41Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

`e16d2ae`	`Disable building of libitm`

sagetrac-git · 2014-10-29T16:29:41Z

Changed commit from 40528eb to e16d2ae

vbraun · 2014-10-29T16:37:08Z

comment:85

No, I'm referring to JP changing the package-version.txt to 4.9.1.p0 without updating checksums or even naming the hand-crafted tarball correctly.

vbraun · 2014-10-29T16:38:11Z

comment:86

Oh no you committed that, Jeroen ;-)

jpflori · 2014-10-29T16:55:27Z

comment:87

I just put a stripped-down tarball on the web, using the name pattern we usually use for such stripped-down tarball, that is just including the upstream version number without any patch level...
The only exception is IIRC that we add ugly date to the version number when we actually add non upstream stuff within the tarball we distribute.
Didn't push anything to the git repo.
It's just in case you want a more lightweight Sage.

kiwifb · 2014-10-29T21:41:45Z

Changed reviewer from R. Andrew Ohana to R. Andrew Ohana, Jeroen Demeyer, François Bissey

kiwifb · 2014-10-29T21:41:45Z

comment:88

OK the compiler now compiles and seem to work so far for me. I haven't needed to import the other yosemite tickets yet and I am at maxima. Make that ntl now.

vbraun · 2014-10-29T21:59:25Z

comment:89

You don't need other tickets for compiling if you don't have SAGE_CHECK=yes.

Jeroen: whats with 4.9.1.p0 now, you want to upload a modified tarball and add the checksum or should I revert that?

jdemeyer · 2014-10-29T22:02:20Z

comment:90

Replying to @vbraun:

you want to upload a modified tarball and add the checksum or should I revert that?

For me it's fine as it is... in any case with the new configure options the difference between the vanilla tarball and the stripped down tarball is not very significant. It's essentially a choice between ease-of-maintaining and download size.

jdemeyer · 2014-10-29T22:02:49Z

comment:91

I added .p0 just because it's a patched version, not completely vanilla.

kiwifb · 2014-10-29T22:59:15Z

comment:92

And now I am at the conway_polynomial segfault which I think started everything.

vbraun · 2014-10-29T23:32:15Z

comment:93

Oh, that is because you didn't apply #17204. Forgot about that one since I merged it a while ago.

kiwifb · 2014-10-30T02:41:13Z

comment:94

Replying to @vbraun:

Oh, that is because you didn't apply #17204. Forgot about that one since I merged it a while ago.

Indeed. All compiled now.

vbraun · 2014-10-30T09:45:51Z

Changed branch from u/jdemeyer/ticket/17169 to e16d2ae

vbraun · 2014-10-30T11:27:21Z

Changed commit from e16d2ae to none

vbraun · 2014-10-30T11:27:21Z

comment:96

Aaaand 4.9.2 was just released ;-)

vbraun · 2014-10-30T16:42:10Z

comment:97

Next is #17262

vbraun added this to the sage-6.4 milestone Oct 17, 2014

vbraun added c: packages: standard labels Oct 17, 2014

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

vbraun changed the title ~~Upgrade to GCC 4.8.3~~ Upgrade to GCC 4.9.1 Oct 18, 2014

kiwifb added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Oct 29, 2014

vbraun removed the s: positive review label Oct 30, 2014

vbraun closed this as completed in ba493df Oct 30, 2014

jhpalmieri mentioned this issue Oct 15, 2016

Allow Sage to build on OS X 10.12 (Sierra) #21567

Closed

Upgrade to GCC 4.9.1 #17169

Upgrade to GCC 4.9.1 #17169

Comments

vbraun commented Oct 17, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 17, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 17, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 17, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 18, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 18, 2014

jdemeyer commented Oct 18, 2014

jdemeyer commented Oct 18, 2014

ohanar commented Oct 18, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 18, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 18, 2014

This comment has been minimized.

vbraun commented Oct 18, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 18, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 18, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 18, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 18, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 18, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 18, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 18, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 18, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 18, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 18, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 18, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 18, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 18, 2014

jpflori commented Oct 29, 2014

jpflori commented Oct 29, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 29, 2014

jpflori commented Oct 29, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 29, 2014

jdemeyer commented Oct 29, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 29, 2014

jdemeyer commented Oct 29, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 29, 2014

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Oct 29, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 29, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 29, 2014

jpflori commented Oct 29, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 29, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 29, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 29, 2014

jdemeyer commented Oct 29, 2014

jdemeyer commented Oct 29, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 29, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 29, 2014

kiwifb commented Oct 30, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 30, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 30, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 30, 2014

vbraun commented Oct 30, 2014