Closed edwtjo closed 10 years ago
The relevant part is this one, I guess:
/tmp/nix-build-avr-gcc-libc.drv-3/gcc-4.6.3/obj-avr/./gcc/xgcc -B/tmp/nix-build-avr-gcc-libc.drv-3/gcc-4.6.3/obj-avr/./gcc/ -B/nix/store/ybj37084s2f71bkh3a1qm7id7krvcq20-avr-gcc-libc/avr/bin/ -B/nix/store/ybj37084s2f71bkh3a1qm7id7krvcq20-avr-gcc-libc/avr/lib/ -isystem /nix/store/ybj37084s2f71bkh3a1qm7id7krvcq20-avr-gcc-libc/avr/include -isystem /nix/store/ybj37084s2f71bkh3a1qm7id7krvcq20-avr-gcc-libc/avr/sys-include -g -O2 -mmcu=avr25 -O2 -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -isystem ./include -DDF=SF -Dinhibit_libc -mcall-prologues -Os -g -DIN_LIBGCC2 -D__GCC_FLOAT_NOT_NEEDED -fno-stack-protector -Dinhibit_libc -I. -I. -I../../.././gcc -I../../../../libgcc -I../../../../libgcc/. -I../../../../libgcc/../gcc -I../../../../libgcc/../include -DUSE_EMUTLS -o _absvhi2.o -MT _absvhi2.o -MD -MP -MF _absvhi2.dep -DL_absvsi2 -c ../../../../libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c \
-DLIBGCC2_UNITS_PER_WORD=2
../../../../libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__absvhi2':
../../../../libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:233:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
Yes, of course. There doesn't seem to be a maintainer to CC. I can look into it later.
There is probably not much the average Nixpkgs maintainer can do about a bug in GCC. You should really report this to gcc.gnu.org.
I didn't mean fix the bug :) Just going through the nixos patches for the package and the gcc bug database in search of similar bugs, in case there is a patch. Otherwise of course I'll file a bug.
Couldn't find any appropriate related bug. As expected, the segault also occurs without using any patches. Filed under 60015
I'll look into upgrading the package as a workaround.
Could it be a problem that you have gcc-4.8.* in stdenv and use gcc-4.6.* parts?
It builds now 14a6a059f according to @7c6f434c, so we close this?
Thanks @7c6f434c! I didn't realise you could substitute the stdenv gcc like that.
Some ugly output..