http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152590 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152590#c16 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.com> --- (In reply to Andreas Färber from comment #15)
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #12)
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #11)
export NO_BRP_STRIP_DEBUG=true export NO_DEBUGINFO_STRIP_DEBUG=true %define __debug_install_post %{nil}
Commenting these 3 lines frees 500M on disk and the linked binary (using such built toolchain) has the same md5 hash.
They were added in rev 40 of gcc5: osc rdiff -c 40 devel:gcc gcc5
+Tue Apr 7 09:55:38 UTC 2015 - afaerber@suse.de + +- Prepare for non-icecream cross-compilers +* Define sysroot to match cross-binutils config +* Prepare for requiring cross-newlib for some targets +* Use all-host target for libc bootstrap, too +* Install target files, but suppress stripping them (breaks them)
There you have the reason: OBS destroyed .o, .a or whatever files for the non-native architecture. This was the only workaround we had.
Yes. But did anybody actually file a bug for brp-strip or whatever was doing this?
Richie, before you revert any such workaround, please assure that it can actually link without it. Last Hackweek I had prepared a simple "testsuite" for linking target binaries here: https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/home:a_faerber:branches:devel:gcc: cross-test
Of course the links broke due to gcc updates since, and it uncovered the epiphany cross-compiler having regressed, so to get it accepted I assume we'd at least need to suppress the package from showing as Failed...
Yes, I remember asking for that. Note the appropriate "workaround" is to make strip/objcopy recognize the architecture for the targets we build cross compilers for. I actually cannot reproduce the issue for any cross target right now, I wanted to do sth like ... create target object file ... strip test.o ... check if it is valid ... else .. do current workaround .. at the end of %build or %install but as said, I couldn't actually test it. I guess we really only can get at the "installed" toolchain from a separate package / spec file. I've meanwhile "fixed" devel:gcc/gcc9
+* Suppress -icecream-backend subpackage +* Allow building on any architecture
-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.