From murdoch.duncan at gmail.com  Wed Mar 11 20:38:20 2015
From: murdoch.duncan at gmail.com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:38:20 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Notes on building a gcc toolchain for Rtools (but not
	multilib)
In-Reply-To: <2019630797.513208.1426100997515.JavaMail.root@fredhutch.org>
References: <2019630797.513208.1426100997515.JavaMail.root@fredhutch.org>
Message-ID: <550099AC.8010309@gmail.com>

On 11/03/2015 3:09 PM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Duncan Murdoch" <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
> > To: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtenenba at fredhutch.org>
> > Cc: r-devel at r-project.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:06:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Rd] Notes on building a gcc toolchain for Rtools (but not multilib)
> >
> > On 10/03/2015 3:17 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> > > On 10/03/2015 2:56 PM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: "Duncan Murdoch" <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
> > > >> To: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtenenba at fredhutch.org>
> > > >> Cc: "Hsiu-Khuern Tang" <tangoh at gmail.com>, r-devel at r-project.org
> > > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:37:12 AM
> > > >> Subject: Re: [Rd] Notes on building a gcc toolchain for Rtools
> > > >> (but not multilib)
> > > >>
> > > >> On 10/03/2015 12:54 PM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > >>>> From: "Duncan Murdoch" <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
> > > >>>> To: "Hsiu-Khuern Tang" <tangoh at gmail.com>,
> > > >>>> r-devel at r-project.org
> > > >>>> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 10:40:02 AM
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [Rd] Notes on building a gcc toolchain for Rtools
> > > >>>> (but not	multilib)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 09/03/2015 11:07 AM, Hsiu-Khuern Tang wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Duncan Murdoch
> > > >>>>> <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 08/03/2015 10:02 PM, Hsiu-Khuern Tang wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [This is a follow-up to the "New version of Rtools for
> > > >>>>>>> Windows"
> > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > >>>>>>> in January, but I just subscribed and don't know how to
> > > >>>>>>> reply to
> > > >>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>> old thread -- my apologies.]
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I am planning to put a new Rtools online today that uses a
> > > >>>>>> different
> > > >>>>>> build of gcc 4.9.2.  I will be concentrating on getting it
> > > >>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>> work with
> > > >>>>>> all the external libraries before the 3.2.0 release next
> > > >>>>>> month.
> > > >>>>>>  I'm not
> > > >>>>>> planning to try to get it to work with R-patched, and I
> > > >>>>>> expect it
> > > >>>>>> won't:
> > > >>>>>>  I needed to make a number of patches to R-devel for
> > > >>>>>>  compatibility.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I also worked off R-devel (I said wrongly that it was
> > > >>>>> R-patched
> > > >>>>> in
> > > >>>>> my
> > > >>>>> original post) and benefited from your compatibility changes.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I look forward to the new Rtools and will test it by
> > > >>>>> compiling
> > > >>>>> some
> > > >>>>> packages.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It's now on the main site at CRAN, and should propagate to the
> > > >>>> mirrors
> > > >>>> reasonably quickly.  I'm hoping that tomorrow's R-devel build
> > > >>>> will
> > > >>>> use
> > > >>>> it, but there may be some last minute problems.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks to you and everyone who worked on this. Is there a way
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> tell which toolchain built a given R-devel binary?
> > > >>> If not, can you let us know when there is one on CRAN that was
> > > >>> built with the new Rtools?
> > > >>
> > > >> If you look in etc/*/Makeconf, you'll see something like this:
> > > >>
> > > >> BINPREF ?= $(RTOOLS)gcc492_64/bin/
> > > >>
> > > >> hopefully from tomorrow onwards.  If today's build was with the
> > > >> new
> > > >> toolchain, you should see a hardcoded path to where I have
> > > >> Rtools
> > > >> installed on the build machine, which isn't so helpful.  The
> > > >> previous
> > > >> toolchain left BINPREF blank.
> > > >>
> > > >> If you want to use your own toolchain, just edit those files.
> > > >>  If you
> > > >> want to install the standard Rtools somewhere else, set an
> > > >> environment
> > > >> variable like
> > > >>
> > > >> RTOOLS = C:/Rtools/
> > > >>
> > > >> (where the terminal / is required.)
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, that's very helpful. I also notice with the latest
> > > > R-devel binary (67969, which is built with the new Rtools
> > > > according to what you say above) that I need to do
> > > > setInternet2(TRUE) before I can download from any URLs; I see
> > > > some mention of that earlier in this thread, is this intended?
> > > > If so is there a way to make this the default?
> > >
> > > That's a bug.  I haven't tracked down what's going wrong with our
> > > regular code.  If I can't find that and fix it soon, I'll make
> > > Internet2
> > > the default.  For now, you can do it yourself using the
> > > instructions on
> > > ?setInternet2.
> >
> > I've found the problem now, and it will be easy to fix.  In case
> > anyone
> > else finds this thread, here's the problem:
> >
> > The regular Windows internet code (not internet2) used the Winsock
> > interface.  It returns different error codes than the Unix sockets
> > interface.   Some error codes are ignorable (EWOULDBLOCK and
> > EINPROGRESS); these are WSAEWOULDBLOCK and WSAEINPROGRESS in Winsock.
> > We had code like
> >
> > #ifndef EWOULDBLOCK
> > # define EWOULDBLOCK             WSAEWOULDBLOCK
> > #endif
> >
> > so our code could work with the Unix macro names.  However, the new
> > toolchain defines both EWOULDBLOCK
> > and WSAEWOULDBLOCK, so the remapping never happened, and we didn't
> > ignore those errors.
> >
> > Tomorrow's R-devel should have the fix in place, unless something
> > else
> > goes wrong, or I'm too slow.
> >
>
> Thanks! Will there be a corresponding update to Rtools as well, or is that not necessary?

Not necessary.

Duncan Murdoch



[Rd] Notes on building a gcc toolchain for Rtools (but not multilib)
Duncan Murdoch