From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10353 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2006 18:15:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 10320 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2006 18:15:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060621181522.10319.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug ada/27937] [4.2 Regression] Ada bootstrap failure on Solaris 10/x86 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg01986.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #8 from ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de 2006-06-21 18:15 ------- Subject: Re: [4.2 Regression] Ada bootstrap failure on Solaris 10/x86 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org writes: > > Ok, thanks for the explanation. But right now, the FSF tree has M_F_F_S_F > > definitions for neither Solaris/SPARC nor /x86, AFAIKT. And Solaris/SPARC > > and Solaris/SPARCv9 can turn on ZCX and are thus unaffected, while > > Solaris/x86 has ZCX off, which breaks bootstrap. > > ZCX are already turned on for SPARC/Solaris. That's what I meant. I wondered why it's turned on without M_F_F_S_F and works while it's off on Solaris/x86. > > Since this is a mainline regression from 3.x/4.[01], do you think there > > could be a fix/workaround in place for 4.2.0? > > Sure, someone has to write it. :-) Which is true for most fixes :-) Thanks. Rainer -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27937