I noticed that gcc-config recently gained --enable-native-links / --disable-native-links knobs that are . Will this patch with a renamed option name e.g. --disable-default-cc-vars and support for a USE flag work?
Thanks, Manoj On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:07 AM Manoj Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:49 AM Sergei Trofimovich <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:54:12 -0700 >> Manoj Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 1:17 AM Sergei Trofimovich <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 19:03:48 -0800 >> > > Manoj Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:20 PM Sergei Trofimovich < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 22:41, Manoj Gupta <[email protected]> >> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:22 AM Manoj Gupta < >> [email protected]> >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> gcc-config installs cc/f77 by default. This may be undesired on >> > > > > >> systems that want to set their own versions of cc/f77. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Add option "-n"/"--no-default-vars" to not install the cc/f77 >> > > > > >> wrappers. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Manoj Gupta <[email protected]> >> > > > > >> --- >> > > > > >> gcc-config | 6 +++++- >> > > > > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> diff --git a/gcc-config b/gcc-config >> > > > > >> index f03a46a..6f306db 100755 >> > > > > >> --- a/gcc-config >> > > > > >> +++ b/gcc-config >> > > > > >> @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ update_wrappers() { >> > > > > >> # For all toolchains, we want to create the fully >> qualified >> > > > > >> # `tuple-foo`. Only native ones do we want the >> simple >> > > `foo`. >> > > > > >> local all_wrappers=( ${new_wrappers[@]/#/${CTARGET}-} ) >> > > > > >> - if ! is_cross_compiler ; then >> > > > > >> + if ! is_cross_compiler && [[ "${DEFAULT_PROGS}" == >> "yes" >> > > ]]; >> > > > > then >> > > > > >> all_wrappers+=( "${new_wrappers[@]}" ) >> > > > > >> # There are a few fun extra progs which we >> have to >> > > > > handle #412319 >> > > > > >> all_wrappers+=( cc:gcc f77:g77 ) >> > > > > >> @@ -951,6 +951,7 @@ FORCE="no" >> > > > > >> CC_COMP= >> > > > > >> ENV_D="${EROOT}etc/env.d" >> > > > > >> GCC_ENV_D="${ENV_D}/gcc" >> > > > > >> +DEFAULT_PROGS="yes" >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> for x in "$@" ; do >> > > > > >> case "${x}" in >> > > > > >> @@ -972,6 +973,9 @@ for x in "$@" ; do >> > > > > >> -l|--list-profiles) >> > > > > >> set_doit list_profiles >> > > > > >> ;; >> > > > > >> + -n|--no-default-vars) >> > > > > >> + DEFAULT_PROGS="no" >> > > > > >> + ;; >> > > > > >> -S|--split-profile) >> > > > > >> if [[ ( $1 != "-S" && $1 != >> > > "--split-profile" ) >> > > > > || $# -eq 1 ]] ; then >> > > > > >> usage 1 >> > > > > >> -- >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Not sure of the correct mailing list for patches to gcc-config >> so >> > > also >> > > > > adding toolchain@gentoo . >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > [email protected] should generally be fine. >> > > > > >> > > > > Today cc->gcc and gcc->${CHOST}-gcc symlinks are effectively >> owned by >> > > > > a single sys-devel/gcc-config package. >> > > > > gcc-config is calld to update symlinks every time sys-devel/gcc is >> > > > > installed/updated. That way we never get cc/gcc >> > > > > out of sync. >> > > > > >> > > > > Your change makes /usr/bin/cc an orphan symlink. I think we need >> to >> > > > > still keep a 'cc'/'f77' ownership somewhere >> > > > > (say, a separate package). >> > > > > >> > > > > I suggest making a decision to handle or not handle 'cc'/'f77' and >> > > > > gcc-config build-time, not gcc-config call-time. >> > > > > That way sys-devel/gcc updates will behave the same as manual >> > > > > 'gcc-config-' calls. >> > > > > >> > > > > Mechanically that could be a Makefile variable that switches the >> > > > > behaviour on/off at >> > > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/gcc-config.git/tree/Makefile >> > > > > and exposed as an USE flag on sys-devel/gcc-config ebuild. >> > > > > >> > > > > Later we can create a separate ebuild to manage /usr/bin/cc. For >> gcc >> > > > > it's not hard, as gcc-config always provides /usr/bin/gcc and >> > > > > /usr/bin/${CHOST}-gcc. >> > > > > These can be static symlinks that don't require maintenance >> updates. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. I will look into adding a Makefile >> > > variable >> > > > exposed via an USE flag. >> > > >> > > You might also need to look in the detail at 'c++', 'cpp' and >> ${CHOST}-* >> > > equivalents >> > > as those also get linked by gcc-config: >> > > >> > > $ LANG=C ls -l /usr/bin/ | fgrep 10.0.1 | fgrep -v -- '-10.0.1 ->' >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 43 Feb 4 10:45 c++ -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/c++ >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 43 Feb 4 10:45 cc -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcc >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 43 Feb 4 10:45 cpp -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/cpp >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 43 Feb 4 10:45 g++ -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/g++ >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 43 Feb 4 10:45 gcc -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcc >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 46 Feb 4 10:45 gcc-ar -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcc-ar >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 46 Feb 4 10:45 gcc-nm -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcc-nm >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 50 Feb 4 10:45 gcc-ranlib -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcc-ranlib >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 45 Feb 4 10:45 gccgo -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gccgo >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 44 Feb 4 10:45 gcov -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcov >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 Feb 4 10:45 gcov-dump -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcov-dump >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 Feb 4 10:45 gcov-tool -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcov-tool >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 48 Feb 4 10:45 gfortran -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gfortran >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 45 Feb 4 10:45 go-10 -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/go-10 >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 48 Feb 4 10:45 gofmt-10 -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gofmt-10 >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 48 Feb 4 10:45 lto-dump -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/lto-dump >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 63 Feb 4 10:45 >> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-c++ >> > > -> /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-c++ >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 63 Feb 4 10:45 >> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-cpp >> > > -> /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-cpp >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 63 Feb 4 10:45 >> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ >> > > -> /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-g++ >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 63 Feb 4 10:45 >> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc >> > > -> /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 66 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-ar -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-ar >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 66 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-nm -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-nm >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 70 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-ranlib -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-ranlib >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 65 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gccgo -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gccgo >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 64 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcov -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcov >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcov-dump -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcov-dump >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcov-tool -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gcov-tool >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 68 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gfortran -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gfortran >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 45 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-go-10 -> >> /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/go-10 >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 48 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gofmt-10 -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/gofmt-10 >> > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 48 Feb 4 10:45 >> > > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-lto-dump -> >> > > /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/10.0.1/lto-dump >> > > >> > > > Regarding the separate ebuild, I hope someone more knowledgeable >> > > > than me regarding ebuilds can handle that. >> > > >> > > How do you plan to manage those symlinks meanwhile? >> > > >> > > I guess there is a confusion in the scope of change I want to do. >> > >> > GCC package does not provide cc and f77 binaries or symlinks. These are >> > provided by the gcc-config >> > which adds /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/f77. >> > These are not needed for building packages via portage but were added >> > in https://bugs.gentoo.org/412319 just because it is nice to ensure >> that >> > invocations like >> > $ make >> > work as is without setting CC explicitly e.g. >> > $ CC=gcc make >> >> I'm afraid "not needed" is desired but not strictly true. I keep seeing >> packages that use 'cc' accidentally (dev-util/radare2) or explicitly. >> Don't know if most of them can safely fall back to 'gcc' at ./configure >> time. I suspect many don't. >> >> > I only want to change gcc-config to NOT create /usr/bin/cc and >> /usr/bin/f77 >> > via an option. >> > Everything else stays unchanged. >> >> I see. Initially you said you want to set your own 'cc' and 'f77' >> wrapper. >> Can you clarify what is the motivation to change only a subset of >> programs? >> Maybe describe whole intended setup? >> >> This is only for Chrome OS setup where I want to switch "cc" to point to > clang or a different compiler (Switching will be done using a > different ebuild not used in Gentoo). > I do not want to disturb Gentoo's current setup in any way other than > adding an option to "gcc-config" > that will serve our needs. > > It feels very dangerous to have 'cc' point to one compiler (manually set) >> and 'c99' to another ('gcc'). >> We will start producing more inconsistent environments than we do today. >> >> Not installing 'cc'/'f77' at all might be less bad. >> > > Yes, this is exactly what I'd like but some internal teams want '$ make' > to work > as is. This option to "not install" these links will be a good first step > to find out > if there are any packages relying on 'cc' being present in Chrome OS > builds. > > Thanks, > Manoj > > >> -- >> >> Sergei >> >
