[11:12] <RikMills> doko: do you have an idea what might need to be done to resolve this? https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/S7Q5y3sYb5/
[11:14] <doko> RikMills: the llvm-12 build on riscv64 just finished 2h ago. maybe just retry?
[11:16] <RikMills> doko: that is the 1st thing I checked in the build log. it used that llvm build :/
[11:18] <RikMills> In fact that is why I did that build. to test if the new llvm-12 solved the issue
[11:18] <doko> we were using gcc-11 on riscv64 to build llvm-12. we could revert that now. the needed patch is backported to gcc-10
[11:19] <RikMills> shal I report a bug?
[11:19] <RikMills> *shall
[11:20] <doko> I don't understand why libstdc++6 doesn't satisfy that symbol ...
[11:20] <doko> LocutusOfBorg: ^^^
[11:21] <ricotz> hi :), could you retry the autopkgtest for vala here? https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#vala
[11:21] <RikMills> doko: only ref I found online was https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg255111.html
[11:22] <RikMills> but I am slightly out on my depth on that, so not sure if relevant
[11:23] <doko> these baslines only affect libstdc++ tests
[11:23] <ricotz> ah sorry, it was retried already :)
[11:28] <doko> RikMills: libllvm12_12.0.0~++rc3-3_riscv64.deb has the correct versioned dep: libstdc++6 (>= 11). odd
[11:29] <RikMills> doko: if it is relevant, I had a successful build about 24hrs before my 1st fail, and only significant difference I can see in the gcc/llvm stack on that one was libstdc++6:riscv64 (11-20210313-0ubuntu1) used on the successful build vs libstdc++6:riscv64 (11-20210317-0ubuntu1)
[11:29] <RikMills> on the fail
[11:31] <RikMills> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/5WV9MW8Z4Q/
[11:31] <RikMills> ^ diff of the deps installed for the build
[11:39] <doko> RikMills: indeed, _ZNSt9once_flag11_M_activateEv is dropped in -17
[11:45] <doko> RikMills: ahh, I remember, that's PR 99341. libstdc++: Remove symbols for new std::call_once implementation. so the action to wait for today's gcc-11 build, then rebuild llvm-toolchain-12. I don't want to back-out that patch
[11:46] <doko> so will take a few days with these multi-day build times
[11:46] <RikMills> doko: and the new llvm-12 build build with -13 on riscv64 as far as I can see. probably because -17 was taking huge time to finish
[11:47] <RikMills> doko: that is great, and makes sense. thank you :)
[11:48] <doko> I'll upload a doxygen build with 11 to fix the doxygen issue for now
[11:49] <RikMills> thanks!
[15:09] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, I plan a new llvm-toolchain-12 upload in Debian
[15:09] <LocutusOfBorg> so I'll just wait for gcc-11/riscv64 to finish and then sync?
[15:21] <doko> LocutusOfBorg: please revert back to b-d gcc-10 (>= 10.2.1-21)
[16:14] <LocutusOfBorg> doko, for debian too?
[16:14] <LocutusOfBorg> its in sid now...
[16:15] <LocutusOfBorg> you mean drop this line     g++-11 [riscv64],
[16:15] <doko> LocutusOfBorg: does it matter? unstable doesn't have gcc-11 either
[16:15] <LocutusOfBorg> yes so just drop that line?
[16:15] <doko> sur
[16:17] <doko> well, and don't use 11 in the rules
[16:25] <LocutusOfBorg> yes I reverted that already
[16:25] <LocutusOfBorg> thanks
[16:29] <LocutusOfBorg> uploaded in sid, will sync later, we don't need to wait for gcc-11 anymore I guess