FreeCAD 0.17 && /lib//libgcc_s.so.1

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 8:09 PM Steve Kargl
<sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 02:21:50PM +0100, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 13:31:17 -0500 Diane Bruce <db at db.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:52:03AM +0000, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:07 AM Steve Kargl
> > >> <sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> > >>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 09:19:01AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> > >>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> > >>>>> If I were the lang/gcc maintainer this -rpath problem would be my
> > >>>>> number one priority.  The current maintainer has never proposed
> > >>>>> any solutions and when I submit patches he always resists.  I'm
> > >>>>> done wasting my time fighting him.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm late to this discussion (not being a Fortran/Python user) but
> > >>>> is there any way to remove a recalcitrant maintainer?
> > >>>
> > >>> Can you explain what you mean?  The maintainer of the lang/gcc
> > >>> ports is a long-time member of the GCC steering committee
> > >>> and a long-time maintainer of all gcc FreeBSD ports.  There
> > >>> are very few FreeBSD users (like 3 of us) who have commit access
> > >>> to the gcc tree.  Seems like a dubious idea to remove one of
> > >>> those 3.
> > >>
> > >> Given the amount of time unsuspecting and half-suspecting users wasted
> > >> on making Fortran code (often in form of a Python extension) working
> > >> on FreeBSD (e.g. I probably wasted weeks), time is high to do
> > >> something, e.g. commit the said patches---there is an agreement that
> > >> they are correct, right?
> > >
> > > Dima, gerald has always been very helpful in all my communications
> > > with him. Have you filed a PR for the fix? dropped  him an email?
> > >
> > > I know we (gerald and ?? can't remember) tried a static lib change
> > > a few years ago. I believe it didn't work at the time due to missing
> > > symbols which we have since added.
> >
> > This cannot be entirely correct.  I don't see what missing symbols this
> > would have been.  I attached my patch to bug 208120 on 2017-02-09 and
> > you responded it was the best idea.  mmel then discovered it didn't
> > entirely fix the problem on ARM where _Unwind_Backtrace has version
> > GCC_4.3.0 instead of GCC_3.3.0.  The gcc commit that changed this
> > doesn't explain why this was done, but we'll have to make the same
> > change in FreeBSD ARM libgcc_s to be ABI compatible (since _Unwind* is
> > part of the ABI).  This isn't a blocker for the patch.
> >
> > I emailed the patch to gerald on 2017-02-21.  He responded in the usual
> > way that he prefers patches submitted upstream and because I thought the
> > patch would not be accepted upstream he proposed an alternative solution
> > where gcc would always add -rpath on FreeBSD so you didn't have to
> > specify it on the command line.  I responded this wouldn't fix the case
> > where clang was used as a linker (e.g. to combine fortran and c++ code
> > in one program) and that the FAQ on the gcc website said it was a bad
> > idea for other reasons.  I also said upstream might accept my patch if
> > it was a configure option but that the gcc configure scripts are
> > complicated and I didn't know where to add it exactly.  Then silence.
> > This is typical for all my conversations with him over the years so I
> > stopped caring.
> >
>
> I do find the above paragraph to be somewhat ironic.  It seems
> that python importing Fortran compiled code runs into this
> problem.  I have sent 3 or 4 patches to freebsd-ports@, freebsd-python,
> and created a PR to fix a conflict with the symbol sinpi (which I
> intend to add to libm), and I have been told to upstream my patch.

The patch ought to be upstream, for your patch is quite meaningful
outside of FreeBSD ports.


>
> Well, I checked.  I would need to create an account on a python
> site to send a 2-line patch.

GitHub is hardly a "python site" (or rather CPython, as we talk about
- yes, you need to do a PR at their GitHub repo, which is totally
standard practice nowadays.
https://devguide.python.org/
OK, if you need someone to do such a PR on your behalf, surely this
can be arranged.

>  Given that I actually don't
> program in python, that certainly seems to be an unreasonable
> request from the python maintainers.

If I were a Python maintainer I might have pointed out to you that
IEEE-754 speaks about sinPi(), not sinpi(), and if you added
sinPi() to libm, it would have been fine without a patch.
(although this might be breaking naming taboos :-))

Dima

>
> BTW, I am a gfortran maintainer.  gfortran is the only Fortran
> compiler available for FreeBSD that actually implements most
> of the Fortran standards.  I've spent 15+ years making sure
> gfortran works on FreeBSD and that changes to GCC don't cause
> regression.  This is first time I've seen your patch.  AFAICT,
> the file libgfortran/Makefile.am needs a patch, and then a
> around of automake, autoconf, aclocal needs to be done.  Just
> need to figure out what needs to change and ensure that it
> does not break the rest of the computing world.
>
> --
> Steve