| 1 |
Thomas Kahle wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi everyone, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> i'm trying to write an ebuild and I experience problems with ccache |
| 5 |
> (only on this single package). |
| 6 |
> It seems as ccache somehow generates false positives on this one. After |
| 7 |
> changing the make options the program fails to build ("Declaration of |
| 8 |
> function not found"-like errors). |
| 9 |
> Deactivating ccache solves the problem. |
| 10 |
> I searched a little in Bugzilla, and there are some bugs where people |
| 11 |
> are arguing that ccache can or cannot create problems. So let me phrase |
| 12 |
> some clear questions: |
| 13 |
> **) Are there known issues with ccache? It seems to be stable and |
| 14 |
> untouched for several years already. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
None that I personally know of. It may be the package's build system does |
| 17 |
something insane. You may want to mail the ccache list with the specifics. |
| 18 |
They're generally responsive. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> **) How can I filter the usage of ccache from inside the ebuild ? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
ccache is enabled by FEATURES, and we really can't mess with FEATURES from |
| 23 |
inside an ebuild because it's portage-specific (other package managers may |
| 24 |
handle it differently or not support ccache at all). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> **) Has anyone ever tried to use the same cache for 2 different versions |
| 27 |
> of the gcc ("share the cache")? Is it safe? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
ccache caches its data with a hash which is composed of, among other things, the |
| 30 |
compiler executable's size and mtime. when you switch to another version of |
| 31 |
gcc, the mtime and size are different and so the cached data isn't used; in fact |
| 32 |
the data is cached again. you can switch back and forth between versions with |
| 33 |
gcc-config and ccache will only use the cached data created with that version. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> I first tried to share the cache, ran into the beforementioned trouble |
| 36 |
> and thought its because of the sharing. But after clearing the cache and |
| 37 |
> experimenting a little, I found that it seems to be related just to the |
| 38 |
> package. Its reproducible with a single compiler. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Any comments appreciated. |
| 41 |
> Thanks |
| 42 |
> Thomas |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Hope you figure it out. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
fonts, by design, by neglect |
| 49 |
gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect |
| 50 |
wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives