From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25163 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2009 06:44:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 25032 invoked by uid 48); 11 Jul 2009 06:44:13 -0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090711064413.25031.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug testsuite/40699] [4.5 Regression] All sparcv9 libjava execution tests fail on Solaris 11/SPARC 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00919.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-11 06:44 ------- "ro at techfak dot uni-bielefeld dot de" writes: > Unfortunately, the same thing happens when I invoke runtest manually in the > 20090522 tree where the 64-bit tests still worked correctly. Ah! Thanks, that explains it. So the --print-multi-lib command failed before the patch too, but adding the directories for all multilibs masked this problem. (I was wrongly assuming it was the --print-multi-lib invocation itself that I'd broken.) > What I find, though, are two different invocations of gcj (found with truss): > > * one like this > > /vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.5.0-20090522/11-gcc/gcc/gcj > -B/vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.5.0-20090522/11-gcc/gcc/ > -B/vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.5.0-20090522/11-gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.11/libjava/testsuite/../ > -v > > which finds libgcj.spec, and > > * another one like this > > /vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.5.0-20090522/11-gcc/gcc/gcj > -B/vol/gccsrc/obj/gcc-4.5.0-20090522/11-gcc/gcc/ --encoding=UTF-8 -m64 > --print-multi-directory > > which doesn't (and lacks the second -B above, since libgcj.spec is only > located in the libjava tree). > > Maybe this helps to get this resolved? It does, thanks. I agree that the missing -B option is the problem here. However, the patch has already called a lot of fallout, so the best thing seemed to be to revert it. Thanks a lot for the help though: it shows what needs to be fixed if I or someone else comes back to this at a later date. -- rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40699