* [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-06 15:37 [Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-06 16:55 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-07 8:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-06 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-05-06
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-06 16:55:04 UTC ---
> This doesn't happen in sparcv9-sun-solaris2* or i386-pc-solaris2*
> configurations.
gcc-interface/Makefile.in was a little changed so you probably need to adjust
the relevant regexp here:
# x86 and x86-64 solaris
ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out %86 %x86_64 solaris2%,$(arch) $(osys))),)
LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS_COMMON = \
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-06 15:37 [Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-06 16:55 ` [Bug ada/57188] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-07 8:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-07 14:57 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-07 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-06 15:37 [Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-06 16:55 ` [Bug ada/57188] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-07 8:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-07 14:57 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2013-05-07 15:06 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2013-05-07 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2013-05-07 14:57:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-06 16:55:04 UTC ---
>> This doesn't happen in sparcv9-sun-solaris2* or i386-pc-solaris2*
>> configurations.
>
> gcc-interface/Makefile.in was a little changed so you probably need to adjust
> the relevant regexp here:
>
> # x86 and x86-64 solaris
> ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out %86 %x86_64 solaris2%,$(arch) $(osys))),)
> LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS_COMMON = \
That was it indeed. The following patch restored amd64-pc-solaris2.10
bootstrap for, and also survived i386-pc-solaris2.11 bootstrap:
diff --git a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
--- a/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in
@@ -1098,7 +1098,7 @@ ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out sparc% sun so
endif
# x86 and x86-64 solaris
-ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out %86 %x86_64 solaris2%,$(arch) $(osys))),)
+ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out %86 %x86_64 %amd64 solaris2%,$(arch) $(osys))),)
LIBGNAT_TARGET_PAIRS_COMMON = \
a-intnam.ads<a-intnam-solaris.ads \
s-inmaop.adb<s-inmaop-posix.adb \
But what's the justification for the relevant change, which wasn't
posted to gcc-patches AFAICS?
2013-04-23 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
Pascal Obry <obry@adacore.com>
* 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.
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-06 15:37 [Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-07 14:57 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2013-05-07 15:06 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-07 15:09 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-07 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-07 15:06:45 UTC ---
> But what's the justification for the relevant change, which wasn't
> posted to gcc-patches AFAICS?
>
> 2013-04-23 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
> Pascal Obry <obry@adacore.com>
>
> * 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-06 15:37 [Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-07 15:06 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-07 15:09 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2013-05-13 7:15 ` Arnaud Charlet
2013-05-07 16:04 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2013-05-07 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2013-05-07 15:09:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-07
> 15:06:45 UTC ---
>> But what's the justification for the relevant change, which wasn't
>> posted to gcc-patches AFAICS?
>>
>> 2013-04-23 Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
>> Pascal Obry <obry@adacore.com>
>>
>> * 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.
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* Re: [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-07 15:09 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2013-05-13 7:15 ` Arnaud Charlet
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Arnaud Charlet @ 2013-05-13 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE; +Cc: gcc-bugs
> >> * 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-06 15:37 [Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-07 15:09 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2013-05-07 16:04 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-08 9:29 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-07 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-07 16:04:07 UTC ---
> 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.
I'd post it on the list in any case and see what the other maintainers think.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-06 15:37 [Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-07 16:04 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-08 9:29 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-05-13 7:15 ` charlet at adacore dot com
2013-05-13 11:08 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-08 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
URL| |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
| |atches/2013-05/msg00394.htm
| |l
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-05-08 09:29:11 UTC ---
Mine, patch posted.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-06 15:37 [Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-08 9:29 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-05-13 7:15 ` charlet at adacore dot com
2013-05-13 11:08 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: charlet at adacore dot com @ 2013-05-13 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #7 from charlet at adacore dot com <charlet at adacore dot com> ---
> >> * 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug ada/57188] [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation
2013-05-06 15:37 [Bug ada/57188] New: [4.9 regression] Ada bootstrap broken on Solaris/x64: No_Implicit_Dynamic_Code violation ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2013-05-13 7:15 ` charlet at adacore dot com
@ 2013-05-13 11:08 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-05-13 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 4.9.0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread