From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id kQbVAQwvmGfSrBwAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:12:44 -0500 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=iOTWospB; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id F0E491E105; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:12:43 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 637FC1E05C for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:12:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A1E385828E for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 01:12:43 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 03A1E385828E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=iOTWospB Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149573858D1E for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 01:12:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 149573858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 149573858D1E Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1738026726; cv=none; b=oCcKXt3L8HYHguoPN5LRlBwGgwGwMU7LDFnYDz7OPbOQMGiyGI0K6B2zmuL+P8iouyYQJAKbLTnSXPOzVZZhUzu/zF3EJ72iONCFNRg/6BIBNtrYoRuuMd6mzXEjsdFLQlpjxboyKOqiMHHN0eUmhkBB7cQKXj7nhV+2TDZsxlY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1738026726; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IJdtHoQJCLiN92GCPEmPUBRVx2pfIFodBRZ1uFQguWg=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=fBYDQzl2Vuml9X4GLZ3CL9Rl2sHhQ7Mpbh02Yvg+kDgp6RIPcXi3ad6UIAZDpYdcowZpLNGmhR/d0lUSS8goRTrsqwE04JTlK+rIF1GFU5PXQJuvrkapQzjEEgNgDBtE/PJ/TouMGzeuX/UG7ngoOzzS06FRTZgKXgxLf5HM91Y= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 149573858D1E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1738026725; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ZI0wdYL7WPeKmBZnuTAPIUkag4yKHUClOju+/XOetQE=; b=iOTWospBaMjRVHqexQwpahgtmly6TSnaCKwjosyexlbBEAKmMYEvsGSsRyC6XyI26zLAM+ KNQf2o/bevZC1Gn+DkTO/K3oQ/7XpkgDXDvDSMScZSPWtyXHznPc6TgYdW1BJXSZTEWznp 41qHMtERq80s1Gm4fRYlowKosKKw8j4= Received: from mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-612-JYzGR9WRNIKhyfnWoZga8Q-1; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:12:04 -0500 X-MC-Unique: JYzGR9WRNIKhyfnWoZga8Q-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: JYzGR9WRNIKhyfnWoZga8Q Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B513180034F for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 01:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f41-zbm-amd (unknown [10.22.80.94]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99F4018008C0; Tue, 28 Jan 2025 01:12:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:11:57 -0700 From: Kevin Buettner To: Guinevere Larsen Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb/configure: fail configure if all targets requested with 32bit bfd Message-ID: <20250127181157.792d1d9e@f41-zbm-amd> In-Reply-To: <20250123201338.158819-2-guinevere@redhat.com> References: <20250123201338.158819-2-guinevere@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: FIDwMb0eQn4-Kk6eHcpcf0saDnou62FK28BnqXFM6YE_1738026723 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:13:39 -0300 Guinevere Larsen wrote: > As PR sim/28684 explains, it isn't possible to compile GDB with all > targets enabled and not enabling 64 bit bfd. In 64 bit hosts, 64 bit bfd > is forced, so the build works, but in 32 bit hosts, that has to be > explicitly enabled. > > I ran into this when I tried compiling GDB on a mips64 machine running a > 32 bit OS. Along with the errors in the PR, several other architectures > are also required, notably aarch64 and other explicitly 64bit targets. > Additionally, some 32 bit files required for the gdb mips target aren't > added to the makefile. > > Considering the last comment in the bug says this isn't going to be > fixed on the binutils side, I didn't think it was worth trying to fix > the GDB side. Instead, this commit causes the configure script to fail > if all targets were requested and 64 bit bfd isn't enabled. If that is > ever fixed, we can revert this commit. > > I considered adding this to the top level configure script, but couldn't > figure out how to detect the situation in there, so this was my next > best idea. > > Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28684 Sounds like the right approach to me... Approved-by: Kevin Buettner