Re: GUB fail with smob templates

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
To: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: GUB fail with smob templates


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 6:41 PM
> Subject: Re: GUB fail with smob templates
>
>
> > Phil Holmes <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > GUB has again coughed on the changes to the SMOB code.  It's well out of
> > > my depth to understand why, but I've pasted below some of the error
> > > messages: the make is built with -j14, so I presume that's why there are
> > > so many.
> > >
> > > /home/gub/gub/target/darwin-ppc/src/lilypond-git.sv.gnu.org--lilypond.git-
> > > release-unstable/lily/include/smobs.tcc:131: error: invalid operands of
> > > types 'scm_unused_struct* (Grob::*)()' and 'scm_unused_struct*
> > > (Smob_base<Grob>::*)()' to binary 'operator!='
> >
> > I've pushed a prospective fix to staging.  No idea whether it will do
> > the trick.
> >
> > --
> > David Kastrup
>
>
> This failed again.  I've attached a zip of the whole logfile.  I'll be 
> around for most of today, so can test any potential fix quite quickly.
>
> I'll also look at how GCC could be updated.
>
> --
> Phil Holmes


OK: here's the result of a grep for gnu/gcc on the GUB machine:

specs/cross/gcc-2-95.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-2.95.3/gcc-everything-2.95.3.tar.gz'
specs/cross/gcc-core.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.1.1/gcc-4.1.1.tar.bz2'
specs/cross/gcc.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.1.2/gcc-4.1.2.tar.bz2'
specs/cross/gcc.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.1.1/gcc-4.1.1.tar.bz2'
specs/cygwin/cross/gcc.py:# source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.1.2/gcc-4.1.2.tar.bz2'
specs/cygwin/cross/gcc.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.3.4/gcc-4.3.4.tar.bz2'
specs/cygwin/cross/gcc.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-3.4.4/gcc-3.4.4.tar.bz2'
specs/debian/cross/gcc.py: source = 'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-' + 
debian.gcc_version + '/gcc-' + debian.gcc_version + '.tar.bz2'
specs/debian/cross/gcc.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-3.4.6/gcc-3.4.6.tar.bz2'
specs/freebsd/cross/gcc.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.3.2/gcc-4.3.2.tar.bz2'
specs/gcc.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.1.2/gcc-4.1.2.tar.bz2'
specs/linux-arm-softfloat/cross/gcc-core.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-3.4.6/gcc-3.4.6.tar.bz2'
specs/linux-arm-softfloat/cross/gcc.py: source = 
'http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-3.4.6/gcc-3.4.6.tar.bz2'

It looks like a bit of a mish-mash.  But if we were going to upgrade from 
what is mostly gcc 4.1.1/2, which version should we go to?

--
Phil Holmes