On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > > I completely forgot to add -Wl,--gc-sections. The *-sections > > > options enables gc-sections to work effectively. (edit: oh wait, > > > it looks like you already have that one on your link command, so > > > you should be set there!) > > > > > > Unfortunately, I just can't reproduce the DSO link error you are > > > getting. I've tried building head bits with a 3.9 compiler, and > > > 3.9 bits with the 3.9 compiler, to no avail. > > > > Thanks for looking into this. I'm chasing a more urgent bug this > > weekend, so may not get around to another test for a day or two. > > Oh sure.The chase ended successfully yesterday with a correction now in wider testing. No urgent matter this Sunday.> > > Can you zip up all of the inputs to your link and make it available to me? > > > > With my upload bandwidth it would be very impractical, sorry. > > How about I share my scripts I use to checkout, configure and build? > > > OkWill try to get to get today.> > Should I try building trunk in ThinLTO mode using 3.9? I mean, is > > trunk considered stable enough for building and later use as > > occasional CC/CXX? I might try the build regardles, just to > > check... > > I use trunk, but it depends on how close to the bleeding edge you > are comfortable with. But like I said, I also tried bootstrapping > with 3.9 (both trunk as well as 3.9 sources) and couldn't reproduce.Hmm, so you're saying neither fails for you, right?
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote:> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Carsten Mattner < > carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > I completely forgot to add -Wl,--gc-sections. The *-sections > > > > options enables gc-sections to work effectively. (edit: oh wait, > > > > it looks like you already have that one on your link command, so > > > > you should be set there!) > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I just can't reproduce the DSO link error you are > > > > getting. I've tried building head bits with a 3.9 compiler, and > > > > 3.9 bits with the 3.9 compiler, to no avail. > > > > > > Thanks for looking into this. I'm chasing a more urgent bug this > > > weekend, so may not get around to another test for a day or two. > > > > Oh sure. > > The chase ended successfully yesterday with a correction now in wider > testing. No urgent matter this Sunday. > > > > > Can you zip up all of the inputs to your link and make it available > to me? > > > > > > With my upload bandwidth it would be very impractical, sorry. > > > How about I share my scripts I use to checkout, configure and build? > > > > > > Ok > > Will try to get to get today. > > > > Should I try building trunk in ThinLTO mode using 3.9? I mean, is > > > trunk considered stable enough for building and later use as > > > occasional CC/CXX? I might try the build regardles, just to > > > check... > > > > I use trunk, but it depends on how close to the bleeding edge you > > are comfortable with. But like I said, I also tried bootstrapping > > with 3.9 (both trunk as well as 3.9 sources) and couldn't reproduce. > > Hmm, so you're saying neither fails for you, right? >Yes -- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161003/49dd4cd5/attachment.html>
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:> > On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > > I use trunk, but it depends on how close to the bleeding edge you > > > are comfortable with. But like I said, I also tried bootstrapping > > > with 3.9 (both trunk as well as 3.9 sources) and couldn't reproduce. >> >> Hmm, so you're saying neither fails for you, right? > > YesOkay. Do you mind focusing on the 3.9 branch? It's less of a moving target and lends itself more to figuring out what's failing for me. As soon as I get around to it, I'll send you my full configure and build steps as a shell script. Need to streamline it.