gfortran11, gnat11: init at 11.1.0

[bobrik]

Motivation for this change

I forgot to add it in #121115.

Things done

• Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
• Built on platform(s)
  • NixOS
  • macOS
  • other Linux distributions
• Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
• Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
• Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
• Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[r-rmcgibbo]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 121759 at 6ba5ac8 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package failed to build:

• gnat11

1 package built successfully:

• gfortran11

Note that build failures may predate this PR, and could be nondeterministic or hardware dependent.
Please exercise your independent judgement.

---

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 121759 at 6ba5ac8 run on aarch64-linux 1

1 package built successfully:

• gfortran11

[bobrik]

I don't have access to an x86_64 machine to check the failure on x86_64-linux. Could somebody look into that for me?

[bobrik]

This is the difference that was preventing the previous patch from applying:

diff --git a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
index 3342e33b4b1..836fcbef400 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ NO_INLINE_ADAFLAGS = -fno-inline
 NO_OMIT_ADAFLAGS = -fno-omit-frame-pointer
 NO_SIBLING_ADAFLAGS = -fno-optimize-sibling-calls
 NO_REORDER_ADAFLAGS = -fno-toplevel-reorder
-GNATLIBFLAGS = -W -Wall -gnatpg -nostdinc
+GNATLIBFLAGS = -W -Wall -gnatg -nostdinc
 GNATLIBCFLAGS = -g -O2
 # Pretend that _Unwind_GetIPInfo is available for the target by default.  This
 # should be autodetected during the configuration of libada and passed down to

Perhaps there's a better way to handle this.

[vcunat]

It's possible to remove the context above, so that the patch would apply in both cases. I think in this case it seems quite safe wrt. possibilities of mis-applying. But your approach seems perfectly fine to me, too.

[vcunat]

Looks OK. Both build for me on x86_64-linux.