gcc-7 vs gcc-6
This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.
This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.
| gcc-7 vs gcc-6 | Carol Spears | 10 Nov 19:42 |
| gcc-7 vs gcc-6 | Elle Stone | 10 Nov 21:52 |
| gcc-7 vs gcc-6 | Carol Spears | 10 Nov 23:33 |
| gcc-7 vs gcc-6 | Ken Moffat via gimp-developer-list | 10 Nov 23:45 |
| gcc-7 vs gcc-6 | Carol Spears | 11 Nov 02:41 |
| gcc-7 vs gcc-6 | Ken Moffat via gimp-developer-list | 11 Nov 05:10 |
| gcc-7 vs gcc-6 | Carol Spears | 11 Nov 14:02 |
gcc-7 vs gcc-6
After a couple of catastrophes, I reinstalled my operating system ... and eventually rebuilt gimp.
The gcc-7 gimp failed to open with a gimp: symbol lookup error: gimp: undefined symbol: gimp_convert_dither_type_compat_get_type
The gcc-6 gimp works fine.
Were my problems related to gcc-7?
carol
gcc-7 vs gcc-6
On 11/10/2017 02:42 PM, Carol Spears wrote:
After a couple of catastrophes, I reinstalled my operating system ... and eventually rebuilt gimp.
The gcc-7 gimp failed to open with a gimp: symbol lookup error: gimp: undefined symbol: gimp_convert_dither_type_compat_get_type
The gcc-6 gimp works fine.
Were my problems related to gcc-7?
In case it might be relevant, this bug indicates a problem specifically with gcc-7.2:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=787222#c5
Best, Elle
gcc-7 vs gcc-6
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Elle Stone wrote:
On 11/10/2017 02:42 PM, Carol Spears wrote:
After a couple of catastrophes, I reinstalled my operating system ... and eventually rebuilt gimp.
The gcc-7 gimp failed to open with a gimp: symbol lookup error: gimp: undefined symbol: gimp_convert_dither_type_compat_get_type
The gcc-6 gimp works fine.
Were my problems related to gcc-7?
In case it might be relevant, this bug indicates a problem specifically with gcc-7.2:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=787222#c5
That's a great screenshot at gcc!
rm /usr/bin/gcc
ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-6 /usr/bin/gcc
Is the "not fixing gcc" cure.
carol
gcc-7 vs gcc-6
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:52:43PM -0500, Elle Stone wrote:
On 11/10/2017 02:42 PM, Carol Spears wrote:
After a couple of catastrophes, I reinstalled my operating system ... and eventually rebuilt gimp.
The gcc-7 gimp failed to open with a gimp: symbol lookup error: gimp: undefined symbol: gimp_convert_dither_type_compat_get_type
The gcc-6 gimp works fine.
Were my problems related to gcc-7?
In case it might be relevant, this bug indicates a problem specifically with gcc-7.2:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=787222#c5
Best, Elle
I can't comment on that specific bug (I haven't converted anything to 16-bit float), but I've used gcc-7.2.0 to build both 2.9.6 and 2.8.22 on different machines without any problems (both using gegl-0.3.20, 2.8.22 modified as in BLFS to do that) and both appear to work, they certainly start OK.
My impression of symbol lookup errors (after a quick google) is that they are caused by mismatched versions of libraries.
In one thread at an opensuse forum (for that same symbol) the problem was apparently caused by getting binaries from a differnt repo, and soembody had to also get libgimp (they separate it!), lcms, babl, and gegl from the other repo.
But if by 'rebuilding' Carol meant "recompiled on the same machine" I have no idea. Her post implies that both gcc-6 and gcc-7 versions are on the same machine, which seems an uncommon approach (assuming both are the same version and this isn't just to test for gcc regressions).
But I haven't tried building applications with a newer version of gcc on a system built with an older gcc for many years, perhaps I'm overlooking something (e.g. changed calling conventions in the newer C++ standard).
Looking at my 2.9 version, the symbol is in both libgimp-2.0.so and libgimpbase-2.0.so, but not in any of the modules. So I suppose the way in is to use ldd to look at what those libs link to (and to check that the gcc-7 versions are being used).
ĸen
Truth, in front of her huge walk-in wardrobe, selected black leather
boots with stiletto heels for such a barefaced truth.
- Unseen Academicals
gcc-7 vs gcc-6
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Ken Moffat via gimp-developer-list < gimp-developer-list@gnome.org> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:52:43PM -0500, Elle Stone wrote:
On 11/10/2017 02:42 PM, Carol Spears wrote:
After a couple of catastrophes, I reinstalled my operating system ...
and
eventually rebuilt gimp.
The gcc-7 gimp failed to open with a gimp: symbol lookup error: gimp: undefined symbol: gimp_convert_dither_type_compat_get_type
The gcc-6 gimp works fine.
Were my problems related to gcc-7?
In case it might be relevant, this bug indicates a problem specifically
with
gcc-7.2:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=787222#c5
Best, Elle
But if by 'rebuilding' Carol meant "recompiled on the same machine" I have no idea. Her post implies that both gcc-6 and gcc-7 versions are on the same machine, which seems an uncommon approach (assuming both are the same version and this isn't just to test for gcc regressions).
Same machine. Same updated clone for years.
I was also compiling with gimp with gcc-7 successfully before my couple of catastrophes, so I don't know why it would start to fail with the new os.
I was confused because I read something about compiler problems on this list, but I wasn't having them.
==multiple compilers installed==
My software installer just announces that it is updating what it considers
to be "gcc", copies that binary into the directory of its choice and simply
ignores the previous gcc. Compiler cruft! When today started I had
gcc-4 from the installer and gcc-7 which I installed with the "real"
software.
I was thinking about getting gcc-5 just so I would have a complete set.
I am pretty sure that each new number of compiler is a new version, hence the number.
I don't think I am the only person who has more than one version of gcc.
carol
gcc-7 vs gcc-6
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 09:41:41PM -0500, Carol Spears wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Ken Moffat via gimp-developer-list < gimp-developer-list@gnome.org> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 04:52:43PM -0500, Elle Stone wrote:
On 11/10/2017 02:42 PM, Carol Spears wrote:
After a couple of catastrophes, I reinstalled my operating system ...
and
eventually rebuilt gimp.
The gcc-7 gimp failed to open with a gimp: symbol lookup error: gimp: undefined symbol: gimp_convert_dither_type_compat_get_type
The gcc-6 gimp works fine.
[...]
I have no idea. Her post implies that both gcc-6 and gcc-7 versions are on the same machine, which seems an uncommon approach (assuming both are the same version and this isn't just to test for gcc regressions).
Same machine. Same updated clone for years.
I was also compiling with gimp with gcc-7 successfully before my couple of catastrophes, so I don't know why it would start to fail with the new os.
I was confused because I read something about compiler problems on this list, but I wasn't having them.
Sure.
==multiple compilers installed==
My software installer just announces that it is updating what it considers to be "gcc", copies that binary into the directory of its choice and simply ignores the previous gcc. Compiler cruft! When today started I had gcc-4 from the installer and gcc-7 which I installed with the "real" software.
I was thinking about getting gcc-5 just so I would have a complete set.I am pretty sure that each new number of compiler is a new version, hence the number.
Nowadays, a new major version each year - and that tends to mean changes in which version of the c++ standard it supports.
I don't think I am the only person who has more than one version of gcc.
carol
Certainly not, my point was that building a current package with two different versions of the compiler is unusual : most people install applications into /usr, a few prefer BSD-style /usr/local. But to have both versions available you need to go out of your way to ensure that the first install is not overwritten by the second.
ĸen
Truth, in front of her huge walk-in wardrobe, selected black leather
boots with stiletto heels for such a barefaced truth.
- Unseen Academicals
gcc-7 vs gcc-6
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 09:41:41PM -0500, Carol Spears wrote:
I don't think I am the only person who has more than one version of gcc.
Certainly not, my point was that building a current package with two different versions of the compiler is unusual : most people install applications into /usr, a few prefer BSD-style /usr/local. But to have both versions available you need to go out of your way to ensure that the first install is not overwritten by the second.
According to the gcc releases list, the most recent release is gcc-5.
https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/releases.html
I think that the confusing thing is "gcc". While "gcc" is what configure looks for and uses, it does not actually exist. It is a symbolic link to one of the versioned binaries like gcc-4, gcc-5, etc. which easily can and do fit into the same directory. The symbolic link just points to the version that gets used.
I think if you "ls -l /usr/bin/gcc" you will see the symbolic link. Many of
the terminal emulators will highlight symbolic links in a different color
which
is nice for finding them without the additional ls option.
Symbolic links are so easy to make that the maintenance problem is on the other side where it needs to be remembered.
I am deleting the g++ symbolic link all the time, for mostly political and nefarious reasons. It is easy enough to put it back when required and I start to know the offensive and questionable software that uses it.
This is not the first compiler bug that shows itself on gimp, but it has been a long while.
carol
