From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27888 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2007 16:10:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 27613 invoked by uid 48); 8 Nov 2007 16:10:18 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20071108161018.27612.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug bootstrap/34003] [4.2/4.3 Regression] gcc 4.3.0 unable to bootstrap itself; Unsatisfied symbols: ggc_free In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00700.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 16:10 ------- Interesting. Something platform-specific must be going wrong here. The original build failure shouldn't have happened even without the attached patch because ggc-none.o should provide a definition of ggc_free. The cc1 link shouldn't fail because $(GGC).o should be linked into libbackend.a. It's probably easier to track down why the original failure happened, rather than why the cc1 one happened, so could you try again without the patch I attached and see why ggc-none.o isn't providing a definition of ggc_free? As things stand, I don't think this was caused by my 2006 patch after all, so I'll unassign myself to avoid confusion. (I'll keep myself on cc: because I'm curious what's wrong.) -- rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot | |org Status|WAITING |NEW Last reconfirmed|2007-11-06 21:38:47 |2007-11-08 16:10:18 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34003