Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Rainer Müller]

On 2018-06-11 06:39, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> 
>> Dave, I would be tempted to uninstall gcc49 and just see what happens.
>> I don't think you need it.
> 
> OK, with trepidation:
> 
>     ozzie:~ dave# port uninstall gcc49
>     --->  Deactivating gcc49 @4.9.4_2
>     --->  Cleaning gcc49
>     --->  Uninstalling gcc49 @4.9.4_2
>     --->  Cleaning gcc49
> 
> Well, nothing seemed to have depended upon it, but I guess I'll find out
> when I run my regular weekly check :-)

As gcc49 would usually only be necessary for building, that would be
expected. You can always remove pure build dependencies without breaking
any installed ports. However, they might be reinstalled again on the
next upgrade if they are still required.

> Q: Shouldn't old stuff be cleaned out for me?  Or do I have to keep
> track of them myself?
Unrequested ports without dependents can be removed with the command
'sudo port reclaim' which should be used regularly.

Rainer

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 10, 2018, at 23:05, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> Sanitised version attached; it's a bit out of date, but the hardware has not 
> changed.
> 
> I'll attempt another High Sierra upgrade later, when I have a few hours to 
> spare, and report back.
> 
> -- Dave


Ok, so you have the MacBook6,1. That is supposed to be supported by High Sierra.

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 10, 2018, at 23:39, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> 
>> Dave, I would be tempted to uninstall gcc49 and just see what happens. I 
>> don't think you need it.
> 
> OK, with trepidation:
> 
>ozzie:~ dave# port uninstall gcc49
>--->  Deactivating gcc49 @4.9.4_2
>--->  Cleaning gcc49
>--->  Uninstalling gcc49 @4.9.4_2
>--->  Cleaning gcc49
> 
> Well, nothing seemed to have depended upon it, but I guess I'll find out when 
> I run my regular weekly check :-)
> 
> Q: Shouldn't old stuff be cleaned out for me?  Or do I have to keep track of 
> them myself?
> 
> Sorry for seeming to be so obstreperous, but under FreeBSD this sort of thing 
> "just works"...  And no, I am not denigrating the Mac etc; it is just one of 
> the many horses in my stable.

MacPorts doesn't uninstall ports for you unless you ask it to.

The "leaves" pseudoport can be useful to find ports that you may no longer need:

port installed leaves

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Dave Horsfall]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

Speaking of Xcode, I keep being offered to upgrade it, but it will only 
run on High Sierra.


I assume this upgrade offer is coming from the Mac App Store. I'm not 
sure why it would offer you a version of Xcode that's not compatible 
with your OS. It's supposed to know when something requires a newer OS, 
and only display it as an "incompatible update" which cannot be 
installed. That's what happens for me on Sierra.


Yep, the App Store, and no, I don't why either, but it does say 
"incompatible update" now (it didn't used to).


The first time I tried that, I got a message about something being 
incompatible with this box which I couldn't write down fast enough 
before it reverted to Sierra.  The next time I tried (paying more 
attention this time), it bombed out because a critical file was 
missing...


I can't really diagnose the problem based on that description. Upgrading 
to High Sierra will not fix the gcc49 build failure, but if you'd like 
to upgrade to High Sierra anyway and are having trouble, please let us 
know your exact computer model, and the specific error messages you're 
encountering.


Sanitised version attached; it's a bit out of date, but the hardware has 
not changed.


I'll attempt another High Sierra upgrade later, when I have a few hours to 
spare, and report back.


-- Dave{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1504\cocoasubrtf830
{\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Helvetica;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;}
{\*\expandedcolortbl;;}
{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid1\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\*\levelmarker
 \{disc\}}{\leveltext\leveltemplateid1\'01\uc0\u8226 
;}{\levelnumbers;}\fi-360\li720\lin720 }{\listname ;}\listid1}}
{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1\listoverridecount0\ls1}}
{\info
{\author Dave 
Horsfall}}\paperw11900\paperh16840\margl1440\margr1440\vieww12800\viewh13400\viewkind1
\pard\tx566\tx1133\tx1700\tx2267\tx2834\tx3401\tx3968\tx4535\tx5102\tx5669\tx6236\tx6803\pardirnatural\qc\partightenfactor0

\f0\fs24 \cf0 \ul \ulc0 Dave Horsfall\'92s MacBook\
\pard\tx566\tx1133\tx1700\tx2267\tx2834\tx3401\tx3968\tx4535\tx5102\tx5669\tx6236\tx6803\pardirnatural\partightenfactor0
\cf0 \ulnone \
Purchased around 13th March 2010.\
\
Model MC207xx/A, 13\'94 screen, serial number 45008Q7, late 2009.  The 
firmware calls itself a MacBook 6,1 (note the ",").\
\
4GB PC3-8500 1067MHz SO-DIMM DDR3 memory (dealer installed).\
\
2.26GHz dual-core 64-bit CPU.\
\
Nvidia GeForce 9400M 256MB.\
\
250GB SATA disk, now external USB due to damaged m/board connector.  Hitachi 
5K500 B-250 2.5\'94 (9.5mm).\
\
DVD burner HL-DT-DVDRW GS23N.\
\
Battery 661-5391 (replaced).\
\
Was 10.6.8 Snow Leopard, various upgrades through Mavericks and Yosemite, now 
on Sierra 10.12.4 11/4/17 through to Sierra 10.12.6 plus sec. fixes (doesn't 
seem to like High Sierra).\
\
Was Xcode 5.1.1 plus command line tools, upgraded through to 8.3.1 12/4/17, now 
on 8.3.2 26/4/17; now somewhere around 9.2 14/12/17.\
\
Safari and Chrome not used; started with Firefox 33.0 instead, always upgraded 
through to 52.0.2 ??/4/17, 52.0.2ESR on 28/4/17, 53.0.3 24/5/17; zillions since 
since then, and now latest Quantum 59.0.2 28/3/18.\
\
MacPorts 2.3.2, now 2.4.1 ??/4/17; 2.4.2 on 9/10/17.\
\
Time Capsule 7.6.4, wireless on for testing remote access, Ethernet on.  
Purchased 16th March 2010.\
\
Known current faults:\
\pard\tx220\tx720\tx1133\tx1700\tx2267\tx2834\tx3401\tx3968\tx4535\tx5102\tx5669\tx6236\tx6803\li720\fi-720\pardirnatural\partightenfactor0
\ls1\ilvl0\cf0 {\listtext   \'95}No audio device found.\
{\listtext  \'95}DVD won\'92t eject disk, and won\'92t read what\'92s 
in there.  Since removed, and found to be jammed and damaged.\
}

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Ken Cunningham]

On 2018-06-10, at 8:54 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, Christopher Jones wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> Sorry for the delay, but I have several disparate systems here to maintain, 
> along with a bunch of electronics projects.  Anyway...
> 
>> Its possible you have a port installed using a gcc49 variant, and when you 
>> update this choice is maintained, even if the default has switched to a 
>> newer gcc. In these cases you need to manually remove the port and reinstall 
>> it with the newer defaults. What does
>>  > port installed | grep gcc
>> give you ?
> 
> ozzie:gcc49 dave$ port installed | grep gcc
>  gcc5 @5.5.0_1 (active)
>  gcc6 @6.4.0_1 (active)
>  gcc49 @4.9.4_2 (active)
>  gcc_select @0.1_8 (active)
>  gccmakedep @1.0.3_0 (active)
>  libgcc @7.3.0_1 (active)
>  libgcc6 @6.4.0_2 (active)
> 
> Does that help?  The only way I delved into the config file was to use the 
> Australian mirrors...
> 
> -- Dave

Dave, I would be tempted to uninstall gcc49 and just see what happens. I don't 
think you need it.

Ken

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, Christopher Jones wrote:

[...]

Sorry for the delay, but I have several disparate systems here to 
maintain, along with a bunch of electronics projects.  Anyway...


Its possible you have a port installed using a gcc49 variant, and when 
you update this choice is maintained, even if the default has switched 
to a newer gcc. In these cases you need to manually remove the port and 
reinstall it with the newer defaults. What does


 > port installed | grep gcc

give you ?


ozzie:gcc49 dave$ port installed | grep gcc
  gcc5 @5.5.0_1 (active)
  gcc6 @6.4.0_1 (active)
  gcc49 @4.9.4_2 (active)
  gcc_select @0.1_8 (active)
  gccmakedep @1.0.3_0 (active)
  libgcc @7.3.0_1 (active)
  libgcc6 @6.4.0_2 (active)

Does that help?  The only way I delved into the config file was to use the 
Australian mirrors...


-- Dave

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 5, 2018, at 11:42, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> Speaking of Xcode, I keep being offered to upgrade it, but it will only run 
> on High Sierra.

I assume this upgrade offer is coming from the Mac App Store. I'm not sure why 
it would offer you a version of Xcode that's not compatible with your OS. It's 
supposed to know when something requires a newer OS, and only display it as an 
"incompatible update" which cannot be installed. That's what happens for me on 
Sierra.


> The first time I tried that, I got a message about something being 
> incompatible with this box which I couldn't write down fast enough before it 
> reverted to Sierra.  The next time I tried (paying more attention this time), 
> it bombed out because a critical file was missing...

I can't really diagnose the problem based on that description. Upgrading to 
High Sierra will not fix the gcc49 build failure, but if you'd like to upgrade 
to High Sierra anyway and are having trouble, please let us know your exact 
computer model, and the specific error messages you're encountering.

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Joshua Root]

Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> 
>> You will still need to fix this 
>> 
>>  
>> , and who knows what else
>>
>> The real question is why? What do you need gcc49 for that gcc5 doesn't do?
> 
> Because I use whatever MacPorts comes with...  I don't touch *anything* in 
> that area except upon advice from this list (I don't futz around with 
> symlinks, for example, although I can under FreeBSD).
> 
> If it wants to build with gcc49, then, well, it wants to build with gcc49; 
> I certainly didn't tell it to...

I'm sure you didn't, but after a default variant is chosen the first
time you install, it sticks across upgrades. This proposal would fix
your problem: 

In the meantime, whichever port it is that is using gcc49 should be
changed to not do so on platforms or with Xcode versions where it won't
work. These commands might help find out which one(s): 'port dependents
gcc49', 'port dependents libgcc', 'port installed variant:gcc49'.

>> If there is any good reason that would certainly make the exercise 
>> somewhat more palatable
> 
> Or are you saying that I need the latest Xcode, which needs High Sierra, 
> which seems to refuse to install on this box?  13", late 2009, firmware 
> "6,1" (note the comma).

The opposite. Newer Xcode versions fail to build gcc49 and older.

- Josh

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Christopher Jones]

> On 5 Jun 2018, at 5:42 pm, Dave Horsfall  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
>> Here is the bug report corresponding to that problem:
>> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/56511
> 
> Ooh - a utility called "sw_vers"!  I wonder what other hidden gems are 
> lurking, essentially undocumented, on one of Apple's finest products?
> 
> After over 40 years of Unix programming, this Mac never ceases to astonish 
> me...  No, I'm not being sarcastic (for once).
> 
> Anyway...
> 
>> gcc4x is not compatible with Xcode 9.2. It may not be compatible with any 
>> Xcode 9.x. Use gcc5 or later if possible. We don't plan to backport the 
>> fixes to make gcc4x compatible with newer Xcode.
> 
> And, err, how do I achieve that?  I have this odd expectation that MacPorts 
> "just works" i.e. the dependencies have been taken care of for me.

What port are you installing/updating that requires gcc49 ? I.e. in your first 
message what was printed prior to

--->  Building gcc49
Error: Failed to build gcc49: command execution failed

??

Its possible you have a port installed using a gcc49 variant, and when you 
update this choice is maintained, even if the default has switched to a newer 
gcc. In these cases you need to manually remove the port and reinstall it with 
the newer defaults. What does

 > port installed | grep gcc

give you ?

Chris

> 
> Speaking of Xcode, I keep being offered to upgrade it, but it will only run 
> on High Sierra.  The first time I tried that, I got a message about something 
> being incompatible with this box which I couldn't write down fast enough 
> before it reverted to Sierra.  The next time I tried (paying more attention 
> this time), it bombed out because a critical file was missing...  I suppose 
> I'd better start putting money aside from my old age pension (yes, I'm a 
> pensioner) to buy an Air or something.
> 
> -- Dave, the iconoclast



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, Ken Cunningham wrote:

You will still need to fix this 
 
, and who knows what else


The real question is why? What do you need gcc49 for that gcc5 doesn't do?


Because I use whatever MacPorts comes with...  I don't touch *anything* in 
that area except upon advice from this list (I don't futz around with 
symlinks, for example, although I can under FreeBSD).


If it wants to build with gcc49, then, well, it wants to build with gcc49; 
I certainly didn't tell it to...


If there is any good reason that would certainly make the exercise 
somewhat more palatable


Or are you saying that I need the latest Xcode, which needs High Sierra, 
which seems to refuse to install on this box?  13", late 2009, firmware 
"6,1" (note the comma).


There aren't any firmware upgrades for the thing; I can cheat and reflash 
it to look like a "Pro" instead, but I ain't about to go down that route 
any time soon...


-- Dave, with a seamless upgrade on his iPhone 5s from iOS 10 to 11.4

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Ken Cunningham]

On 2018-06-05, at 9:53 AM, Ken Cunningham wrote:

> build on 10.16 and 10.17 

before I get shot, read this as "darwin 16 and darwin 17" please...

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Ken Cunningham]

On 2018-06-05, at 9:42 AM, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
>> Here is the bug report corresponding to that problem:
>> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/56511
> 
> Ooh - a utility called "sw_vers"!  I wonder what other hidden gems are 
> lurking, essentially undocumented, on one of Apple's finest products?
> 
> After over 40 years of Unix programming, this Mac never ceases to astonish 
> me...  No, I'm not being sarcastic (for once).
> 
> Anyway...
> 
>> gcc4x is not compatible with Xcode 9.2. It may not be compatible with any 
>> Xcode 9.x. Use gcc5 or later if possible. We don't plan to backport the 
>> fixes to make gcc4x compatible with newer Xcode.
> 
> And, err, how do I achieve that?  I have this odd expectation that MacPorts 
> "just works" i.e. the dependencies have been taken care of for me.
> 
> Speaking of Xcode, I keep being offered to upgrade it, but it will only run 
> on High Sierra.  The first time I tried that, I got a message about something 
> being incompatible with this box which I couldn't write down fast enough 
> before it reverted to Sierra.  The next time I tried (paying more attention 
> this time), it bombed out because a critical file was missing...  I suppose 
> I'd better start putting money aside from my old age pension (yes, I'm a 
> pensioner) to buy an Air or something.
> 
> -- Dave, the iconoclast


gcc49 will probably build on 10.16 and 10.17 without too much trouble -- just 
not with the Xcode clang and headers that comes with those systems.

you might get further building it with gcc7.

You will still need to fix this 

 , and who knows what else

The real question is why? What do you need gcc49 for that gcc5 doesn't do?

If there is any good reason that would certainly make the exercise somewhat 
more palatable

Ken

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Dave Horsfall]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Ryan Schmidt wrote:


Here is the bug report corresponding to that problem:
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/56511


Ooh - a utility called "sw_vers"!  I wonder what other hidden gems are 
lurking, essentially undocumented, on one of Apple's finest products?


After over 40 years of Unix programming, this Mac never ceases to astonish 
me...  No, I'm not being sarcastic (for once).


Anyway...

gcc4x is not compatible with Xcode 9.2. It may not be compatible with 
any Xcode 9.x. Use gcc5 or later if possible. We don't plan to backport 
the fixes to make gcc4x compatible with newer Xcode.


And, err, how do I achieve that?  I have this odd expectation that 
MacPorts "just works" i.e. the dependencies have been taken care of for 
me.


Speaking of Xcode, I keep being offered to upgrade it, but it will only 
run on High Sierra.  The first time I tried that, I got a message about 
something being incompatible with this box which I couldn't write down 
fast enough before it reverted to Sierra.  The next time I tried (paying 
more attention this time), it bombed out because a critical file was 
missing...  I suppose I'd better start putting money aside from my old age 
pension (yes, I'm a pensioner) to buy an Air or something.


-- Dave, the iconoclast

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 4, 2018, at 16:05, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
>>> I won't include the entire log (yet), as I'm sure that I'm not the only 
>>> one.  What I certainly do *not* want, however, is to rebuild GCC, so I 
>>> consider this to be a blessing in disguise :-)
>> 
>> We can't guess what the problem is. Please file a bug report and attach the 
>> compressed main.log.
> 
> I like to make sure that I'm not duplicating a bug report -- how do *you* go 
> bug-hunting? -- but OK, one hidously-long filename "main.log.gz" attached...
> 
> In the meantime, you seem to have missed the other part of my message, viz: 
> how do I *not* recompile GCC?  That will bring this old MacBook to its knees, 
> and I have better things to do with it than have character echo times 
> measured in seconds...
> 
> -- Dave

Here is the bug report corresponding to that problem:

https://trac.macports.org/ticket/56511

gcc4x is not compatible with Xcode 9.2. It may not be compatible with any Xcode 
9.x. Use gcc5 or later if possible. We don't plan to backport the fixes to make 
gcc4x compatible with newer Xcode.

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 4, 2018, at 03:42, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

> On 4 June 2018 at 05:36, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>> --->  Building gcc49
>> Error: Failed to build gcc49: command execution failed
>> Error: See
>> /opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_macports_release_tarballs_ports_lang_gcc49/gcc49/main.log
>> for details.
>> Error: rev-upgrade failed: Error rebuilding gcc49
>> 
>> I won't include the entire log (yet), as I'm sure that I'm not the only one.
>> What I certainly do *not* want, however, is to rebuild GCC, so I consider
>> this to be a blessing in disguise :-)
> 
> To me this looks like the macports-libstdc++ issue that was solved in
> MacPorts 2.5.1.

Why do you suspect that?

The only change in MacPorts 2.5.0 is that it keeps track of which C++ standard 
library ports are using. 2.5.0 neglected to notice a few cases where it was 
possible to infer which C++ library was used when the port did not specify it. 
That's fixed in 2.5.1. So 2.5.1 might not consider gcc49 to be broken and to 
need a reinstall.

However nothing in 2.5.0 or 2.5.1 should have broken the compilation of gcc, so 
the build failure has a different cause.

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Dave Horsfall]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Riccardo Mottola via macports-users wrote:


coulkd this be due to the latest C++ fixes of macports?


Fixed in 2.5.1, I'm told, hence my query as to whether it's a known issue 
before I waste time filing a duplicate bug report.


-- Dave

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Dave Horsfall]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

To me this looks like the macports-libstdc++ issue that was solved in 
MacPorts 2.5.1.


Thanks; I thought it was familiar, hence my reluctance to include the log 
etc, but since Ryan asked...


My next MacPorts update is due next Monday (I check every week) so it can 
wait until then.  Will it require a rebuild of GCC?  I sincerely hope 
not...


Thanks.

-- Dave

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Riccardo Mottola via macports-users]

Hi,

Dave Horsfall wrote:


We can't guess what the problem is. Please file a bug report and 
attach the compressed main.log.


I like to make sure that I'm not duplicating a bug report -- how do 
*you* go bug-hunting? -- but OK, one hidously-long filename 
"main.log.gz" attached...


In the meantime, you seem to have missed the other part of my message, 
viz: how do I *not* recompile GCC?  That will bring this old MacBook to 
its knees, and I have better things to do with it than have character 
echo times measured in seconds...


to my untrained eyes it looks like it is trying to rebuild gcc49, that 
it is using clang which spits out lots of warnings and the stage-1 
generated compiler itself then files to execute properly


The fatal error is:
:info:build In file included from 
/opt/local/var/macports/build/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_macports_release_tarballs_ports_lang_gcc49/gcc49/work/gcc-4.9.4/gcc/c/c-objc-common.c:33:
:info:build In file included from 
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/include/c++/v1/new:89:
:info:build 
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/include/c++/v1/exception:173:5: 
error: no member named 'fancy_abort' in namespace 'std::__1'; did you 
mean simply 'fancy_abort'?

:info:build _VSTD::abort();
:info:build ^~~
:info:build 
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/include/c++/v1/__config:392:15: 
note: expanded from macro '_VSTD'

:info:build #define _VSTD std::_LIBCPP_NAMESPACE

coulkd this be due to the latest C++ fixes of macports?

Riccardo

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Dave Horsfall]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

I won't include the entire log (yet), as I'm sure that I'm not the only 
one.  What I certainly do *not* want, however, is to rebuild GCC, so I 
consider this to be a blessing in disguise :-)


We can't guess what the problem is. Please file a bug report and attach 
the compressed main.log.


I like to make sure that I'm not duplicating a bug report -- how do *you* 
go bug-hunting? -- but OK, one hidously-long filename "main.log.gz" 
attached...


In the meantime, you seem to have missed the other part of my message, 
viz: how do I *not* recompile GCC?  That will bring this old MacBook to 
its knees, and I have better things to do with it than have character echo 
times measured in seconds...


-- Dave

main.log.gz
Description: main.log.gz

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Mojca Miklavec]

Hi,

On 4 June 2018 at 05:36, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> --->  Building gcc49
> Error: Failed to build gcc49: command execution failed
> Error: See
> /opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_macports_release_tarballs_ports_lang_gcc49/gcc49/main.log
> for details.
> Error: rev-upgrade failed: Error rebuilding gcc49
>
> I won't include the entire log (yet), as I'm sure that I'm not the only one.
> What I certainly do *not* want, however, is to rebuild GCC, so I consider
> this to be a blessing in disguise :-)

To me this looks like the macports-libstdc++ issue that was solved in
MacPorts 2.5.1.

Mojca

Re: gcc49 fails to build

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 3, 2018, at 22:36, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> --->  Building gcc49
> Error: Failed to build gcc49: command execution failed
> Error: See 
> /opt/local/var/macports/logs/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports.org_macports_release_tarballs_ports_lang_gcc49/gcc49/main.log
>  for details.
> Error: rev-upgrade failed: Error rebuilding gcc49
> 
> I won't include the entire log (yet), as I'm sure that I'm not the only one.  
> What I certainly do *not* want, however, is to rebuild GCC, so I consider 
> this to be a blessing in disguise :-)

We can't guess what the problem is. Please file a bug report and attach the 
compressed main.log.