From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 6F2D33858D35; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 01:03:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6F2D33858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700010237;
	bh=9ZgDS32FDgDaQLDf2PEl6QZ8FIax+Fm2Xs84s3ZZE5E=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=fm6SmJSWdsQYEalp0r/aXJiakspCZO4hO4u/gTLBtDiNUIvHmlBzE4vvMnZu2Dx5X
	 5hwVPlpm0HqwleqIIX7lwlKE6ITaPZalpETpnac+FOoMZcVk+n2p727PI4W/7Eg6wM
	 HswJ8kxF5o16sEnC4hJTd8tpXRe84j6xkrcmak1Q=
From: "bruno at clisp dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/112534] [14 regression] build failure after
 r14-5424-gdb50aea6259545 using gcc 4.8.5
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 01:03:56 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bruno at clisp dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112534-4-bIuYDQzBls@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112534-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D112534

--- Comment #3 from Bruno Haible <bruno at clisp dot org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Hmm. similar issue happen with gdb 5 years ago:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2018-08/msg00151.html

Thanks; this is helpful. In this thread we have the explanation
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2018-08/msg00158.html, which
could maybe be the root cause of the problem here.

> Looks like this is huge gnulib mess at that.

This comment is not helpful.

1) As shown in the previous comment, max_align_t problems arise from the us=
e of
-std=3D... options that are too old. We are in the year 2023, and it seems =
right
to use ISO C 11 features (from a 12 years old standard), no?

2) Gnulib actually works around two problems related to max_align_t, as
documented here:
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/stddef_002eh.html
Without Gnulib, you would encounter more problems related to max_align_t, n=
ot
fewer.=