1 |
On 9/10/22 14:49, Dale wrote: |
2 |
> Jack wrote: |
3 |
>> I now get this error trying to emerge two different packages: |
4 |
>> libofx-0.10.7 and gnupg (both 2.2.39 and 2.3.6). It might also be the |
5 |
>> same problem for a few bugs on b.g.o found by searching on "cannot |
6 |
>> create exectuables." |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> The relevant lines from build.log are |
9 |
>> |
10 |
>> checking for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc |
11 |
>> checking whether the C compiler works... no |
12 |
>> configure: error: in |
13 |
>> `/var/tmp/portage/dev-libs/libofx-0.10.7/work/libofx-0.10.7': |
14 |
>> configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables |
15 |
>> See `config.log' for more details |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> and from config.log: |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> Thread model: posix |
20 |
>> Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib |
21 |
>> gcc version 11.3.0 (Gentoo 11.3.0 p4) |
22 |
>> configure:2952: $? = 0 |
23 |
>> configure:2941: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -V >&5 |
24 |
>> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command-line option '-V' |
25 |
>> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc: fatal error: no input files |
26 |
>> compilation terminated. |
27 |
>> configure:2952: $? = 1 |
28 |
>> configure:2941: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -qversion >&5 |
29 |
>> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc: error: unrecognized command-line option |
30 |
>> '-qversion'; did you mean '--version'? |
31 |
>> x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc: fatal error: no input files |
32 |
>> compilation terminated. |
33 |
>> configure:2952: $? = 1 |
34 |
>> configure:2972: checking whether the C compiler works |
35 |
>> configure:2994: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -march=native -O2 -pipe -og |
36 |
>> -ggdb -Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed conftest.c >&5 |
37 |
>> configure:2998: $? = 0 |
38 |
>> configure:3036: result: no |
39 |
>> configure: failed program was: |
40 |
>> | /* confdefs.h */ |
41 |
>> | #define PACKAGE_NAME "libofx" |
42 |
>> | #define PACKAGE_TARNAME "libofx" |
43 |
>> | #define PACKAGE_VERSION "0.10.7" |
44 |
>> | #define PACKAGE_STRING "libofx 0.10.7" |
45 |
>> | #define PACKAGE_BUGREPORT "" |
46 |
>> | #define PACKAGE_URL "" |
47 |
>> | /* end confdefs.h. */ |
48 |
>> | |
49 |
>> | int |
50 |
>> | main () |
51 |
>> | { |
52 |
>> | |
53 |
>> | ; |
54 |
>> | return 0; |
55 |
>> | } |
56 |
>> configure:3041: error: in |
57 |
>> `/var/tmp/portage/dev-libs/libofx-0.10.7/work/libofx-0.10.7': |
58 |
>> configure:3043: error: C compiler cannot create executables |
59 |
>> See `config.log' for more details |
60 |
>> |
61 |
>> The thing I find curious is that it appears to me that the output of |
62 |
>> the test compile is a file called "g" which I don't recall ever |
63 |
>> seeing, and so I wonder if the problem is that something has changed |
64 |
>> with gcc defaults and configure does not yet recognize that change. I |
65 |
>> also don't know the significance of the two "fatal error: no input |
66 |
>> files". |
67 |
>> |
68 |
>> The fact that this happens with two unrelated packages suggests that |
69 |
>> it's not specific to either of them, but something in my system or |
70 |
>> configuration. |
71 |
>> |
72 |
>> Any thoughts or suggestions? |
73 |
>> |
74 |
>> Jack |
75 |
>> |
76 |
>> |
77 |
>> |
78 |
> |
79 |
> I ran into this ages ago. I think the fix was to reset which compiler |
80 |
> it is set to use. I used to keep two installed, in case one would fail |
81 |
> or some package couldn't build with a newer version yet. If I recall |
82 |
> correctly, I would list the available options with gcc-config -l and |
83 |
> then if two are available, set to older one and then change back or if |
84 |
> only one is installed, just set it to the one you have. It's been a |
85 |
> good while and it could be that the cause of the problem has changed but |
86 |
> I don't think it will hurt anything to try this. I think some settings |
87 |
> gets messed up and resetting it fixes it. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> Hope that helps. If not, clueless. :/ |
90 |
|
91 |
Thanks Dale, but I only have one version of gcc installed and both |
92 |
gcc-config and binutils-config show only one option. |
93 |
|
94 |
I do believe that David Haller pegged the problem, and I'll respond to |
95 |
his post after confirming. |
96 |
|
97 |
Jack |