* [Bug bootstrap/8686] [sparc-solaris]3.2.1 multilib bootstrap fails: 32-bit Solaris 9 + Sun patch 112963-01
[not found] <20021122223600.8686.eggert@gnu.org>
@ 2003-06-02 4:48 ` dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-02 9:17 ` ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: dhazeghi@yahoo.com @ 2003-06-02 4:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8686
dhazeghi@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr
------- Additional Comments From dhazeghi@yahoo.com 2003-06-02 04:48 -------
Eric,
can you take a look at Paul's documentation patch, and determine if it's correct (since you seem to
deal more with obscure Solaris bugs than the rest of us)? Thanks,
Dara
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/8686] [sparc-solaris]3.2.1 multilib bootstrap fails: 32-bit Solaris 9 + Sun patch 112963-01
[not found] <20021122223600.8686.eggert@gnu.org>
2003-06-02 4:48 ` [Bug bootstrap/8686] [sparc-solaris]3.2.1 multilib bootstrap fails: 32-bit Solaris 9 + Sun patch 112963-01 dhazeghi@yahoo.com
@ 2003-06-02 9:17 ` ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org
2003-06-02 20:01 ` eggert@cs.ucla.edu
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org @ 2003-06-02 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8686
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org 2003-06-02 09:17 -------
Why is the assertion absolete? And the ChangeLog entry is bogus:
--disable-multilib has always worked.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/8686] [sparc-solaris]3.2.1 multilib bootstrap fails: 32-bit Solaris 9 + Sun patch 112963-01
[not found] <20021122223600.8686.eggert@gnu.org>
2003-06-02 4:48 ` [Bug bootstrap/8686] [sparc-solaris]3.2.1 multilib bootstrap fails: 32-bit Solaris 9 + Sun patch 112963-01 dhazeghi@yahoo.com
2003-06-02 9:17 ` ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org
@ 2003-06-02 20:01 ` eggert@cs.ucla.edu
2003-06-02 21:47 ` ro@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
2003-06-09 15:07 ` ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: eggert@cs.ucla.edu @ 2003-06-02 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8686
------- Additional Comments From eggert@cs.ucla.edu 2003-06-02 20:01 -------
Subject: Re: [sparc-solaris]3.2.1 multilib bootstrap fails: 32-bit Solaris 9 + Sun patch 112963-01
"ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> Why is the assertion absolete?
If by "assertion" you are referring to this sentence:
When configuring on a Solaris 7 or later system that is running a kernel
that supports only 32-bit binaries, one must configure with
@option{--disable-multilib}, since we will not be able to build the
64-bit target libraries.
It is obsolete because you can now build 64-bit target libraries even
on hosts that are running only 32-bit kernels.
> And the ChangeLog entry is bogus: --disable-multilib has always
> worked.
OK, here's a revised ChangeLog entry:
2003-03-08 Paul Eggert <eggert@twinsun.com>
* gcc/doc/install.texi (Specific): --disable-multilib now is
no longer necessary on Solaris 7 and later, unless Sun bug 4747851 is
in effect; in that case, describe a workaround (for gcc) and a
fix (for Solaris).
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/8686] [sparc-solaris]3.2.1 multilib bootstrap fails: 32-bit Solaris 9 + Sun patch 112963-01
[not found] <20021122223600.8686.eggert@gnu.org>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-02 20:01 ` eggert@cs.ucla.edu
@ 2003-06-02 21:47 ` ro@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
2003-06-09 15:07 ` ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: ro@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de @ 2003-06-02 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8686
------- Additional Comments From ro@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de 2003-06-02 21:47 -------
Subject: Re: [sparc-solaris]3.2.1 multilib bootstrap fails: 32-bit Solaris 9 + Sun patch 112963-01
"eggert@cs.ucla.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> If by "assertion" you are referring to this sentence:
>
> When configuring on a Solaris 7 or later system that is running a kernel
> that supports only 32-bit binaries, one must configure with
> @option{--disable-multilib}, since we will not be able to build the
> 64-bit target libraries.
>
> It is obsolete because you can now build 64-bit target libraries even
> on hosts that are running only 32-bit kernels.
True, but some of the target libraries require *running* the resulting
64-bit executables, which still fails in such a configuration. Besides, in
many cases hosts that don't support a 64-bit kernel (or where only a 32-bit
kernel is installed), the 64-bit system libraries are not installed either.
I'd suggest that unless we have positive reports that a full bootstrap for
both 32-bit and 64-bit multilibs works on a system with a 32-bit kernel,
but 64-bit system libraries installed, we keep that sentence.
Rainer
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/8686] [sparc-solaris]3.2.1 multilib bootstrap fails: 32-bit Solaris 9 + Sun patch 112963-01
[not found] <20021122223600.8686.eggert@gnu.org>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2003-06-02 21:47 ` ro@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
@ 2003-06-09 15:07 ` ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org @ 2003-06-09 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8686
ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED
------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org 2003-06-09 15:07 -------
Not a bug according to the documentation.
Suspended since it would become a bug if we changed our position regarding the
mandatory use of --disable-multilib on 32-bit kernels.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread