From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25150 invoked by alias); 13 May 2013 07:15:21 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 25111 invoked by uid 89); 13 May 2013 07:15:21 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 May 2013 07:15:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7369426445A6; Mon, 13 May 2013 09:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vVyJGieDzPA2; Mon, 13 May 2013 09:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from chelles.act-europe.fr (chelles.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.160]) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A39264451A; Mon, 13 May 2013 09:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: by chelles.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 525) id DD2CD1EA005E; Mon, 13 May 2013 09:15:15 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 07:15:00 -0000 From: Arnaud Charlet To: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation Message-ID: <20130513071515.GA8394@adacore.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00789.txt.bz2 > >> * gcc-interface/Makefile.in (targ): Fix target name check. > >> > >> Having to deal with the target_alias instead of the canonical form found > >> in target seems rather counterintuitive and fragile to me. > > > > The ChangeLog entry is misleading, neither Pascal nor I have anything to > > do > > with the change. Yes, this is very fragile and has already caused various > > issues. > > This seems to argue for reverting or at least reworking the change. I > suppose I'll withhold my patch until it's decided how to proceed. This change is useful for many cross configurations which have similar names, so I would suggest you post your patch to gcc-patches@. Your patch is pre-approved FWIW, so feel free to apply it. Arno