[Bug bootstrap/39150] New: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[Bug bootstrap/39150] New: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

I am building gcc 4.4.0 [trunk revision 144083] for OpenSolaris 2009.06 .


I have ./configured using:

../gcc_trunk/configure --enable-languages=ada,c,c++,fortran,java,objc,obj-c++
--enable-shared --disable-static --enable-multilib --enable-decimal-float
--with-long-double-128 --with-included-gettext --enable-stage1-checking
--enable-checking=release --with-tune=k8 --with-cpu=k8 --with-arch=k8
--with-gnu-as --with-as=/usr/local/bin/as --without-gnu-ld
--with-ld=/usr/bin/ld --with-gmp=/usr/local --with-mpfr=/usr/local

----------

When (some) other people build for a 64-Bit Operating System and they
submit Testsuite Results the results _sometimes_ have entries like these
in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-02/msg01039.html

...
Native configuration is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

                === g++ tests ===

Running target unix/-m32

                === g++ Summary for unix/-m32 ===

# of expected passes            6810
# of expected failures          28
# of unsupported tests          10

Running target unix

                === g++ Summary for unix ===

# of expected passes            6763
# of expected failures          28
# of unsupported tests          20

                === g++ Summary ===

# of expected passes            38731
# of expected failures          282
# of unsupported tests          346
/export/gnu/import/svn/gcc-test/bld/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++  version 4.4.0
20090210 (experimental) [trunk revision 144083] (GCC) 
...

----------


When I built gcc and submitted my Testsuite Results I do NOT get
"multilib Tests", see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-02/msg01013.html


When I 'file' gcc (built, booted in 64-Bit Mode) using the "file" command I
see:

# file /usr/local/bin/gcc
/usr/local/bin/gcc:     ELF 32-bit LSB executable 80386 Version 1, dynamically
linked, not stripped

I see that as 'acceptable' but technically it is wrong. What is _great_
is that the executable will run in both 32 and 64 bit Boot Mode. So let
us _not_ fix that portion of this Bug.


The "Bug" in gcc 4.4.0 [trunk revision 144083] is that the "config.guess"
(and other related files, EG: config.host) only support the 'HTB' of
i386-pc-solaris2.* and do not support (without a little modification)
either the 'pseudo-name' (it is renamed) amd64-pc-solaris2.* _or_ 
the Target x86_64-pc-solaris2.* .


This issue starts in ../gcc_trunk/config.guess (near line 333):

...
    i86pc:SunOS:5.*:* | i86xen:SunOS:5.*:*)
        eval $set_cc_for_build
        SUN_ARCH="i386"
        # If there is a compiler, see if it is configured for 64-bit objects.
        # Note that the Sun cc does not turn __LP64__ into 1 like gcc does.
        # This test works for both compilers.
        if [ "$CC_FOR_BUILD" != 'no_compiler_found' ]; then
            if (echo '#ifdef __amd64'; echo IS_64BIT_ARCH; echo '#endif') | \
                (CCOPTS= $CC_FOR_BUILD -E - 2>/dev/null) | \
                grep IS_64BIT_ARCH >/dev/null
            then
                SUN_ARCH="x86_64"
            fi
        fi


# I added this section, see:
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=2820#c6

        case "`isainfo -k`" in
            amd64)
                SUN_ARCH="amd64";;
            *)
                SUN_ARCH="i386";;
        esac

        echo ${SUN_ARCH}-pc-solaris2`echo ${UNAME_RELEASE}|sed -e 's/[^.]*//'`
        exit ;;
...


Please notice that (according to the notes in the code) the supposed
purpose of that code is to determine if "it is configured for 64-bit 
objects". The code I added checks the Boot Mode (and assumes that the
compiler will work in the mode it is booted in). In doing so it alters
the Target from 'i386-pc-solaris2.11 to 'x86_64-pc-solaris2.11'.


A few fixes to files '../gcc_trunk/libjava/classpath/config.guess',
'../gcc_trunk/libgcc/config.host' and '../gcc_trunk/gcc/config.gcc'
and we are all set ...

I hope that once I have built gcc with a few small mods that I will
then be able to run the full "multilib Testsuite".


Mine (for now), Fixing, back with the diffs and Test Results,
Rob


-- 
           Summary: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
                    i386-solaris*).
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: major
          Priority: P3
         Component: bootstrap
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: rob1weld at aol dot com
 GCC build triplet: *-solaris2*
  GCC host triplet: *-solaris2*
GCC target triplet: *-solaris2*


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-02-11 20:56 -------
How is this major, this is an enhancement to the build system.  i386-solaris is
a multi arch target so it includes the x86_64 solaris target also.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|major                       |enhancement


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #2 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2009-02-12 13:36 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> How is this major, this is an enhancement to the build system.  i386-solaris is
> a multi arch target so it includes the x86_64 solaris target also.

It could be called an "enhancement to the build system".

I call it a "fault of the build system" and a subsequent "fault of the 
test system" in that this Operating System has 2 ABIs and much of gcc
seems to rely on 'uname' to determine the HTB, that is a mistake.

The correct manner for gcc to decide that the HOST is the so-called
"x86_64-pc-solaris2.11" host is to correctly query the Boot Mode.
That is something that gcc does not do correctly on this Platform.

I do not know that it is an "enhancement" that this Platform should
build and test in the the same manner as other Platforms. I call it
a major Bug. I guess it is a matter of semantics.

Rob


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #3 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2009-02-13 08:36 -------
Here is another person who makes the same complaint (with a patch):
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/2951


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #4 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2009-02-13 09:11 -------
Googling for "amd64-pc-solaris2.11" gives a few hits.
Googling for "x86_64-pc-solaris2.11" gives a dozen hits.
That is not many. Perhaps there is 'no such word'.


It seems there are a few others who discovered this problem:

http://osdir.com/ml/linux.debian.devel.dpkg.bugs/2006-04/msg00106.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-12/msg00461.html
http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=47;bug=1191


Rob


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #5 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2009-02-16 13:11 -------
Results for 4.4.0 20090215 (experimental) [trunk revision 144190] (GCC)
testsuite on x86_64-pc-solaris2.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-02/msg01526.html

Rob


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[grobian at gentoo dot org]

------- Comment #6 from grobian at gentoo dot org  2009-10-23 12:12 -------
this sounds like bug #30726
for what it's worth, my updated patches for gcc-4.4 can be found here:
http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/alt/browser/trunk/prefix-overlay/sys-devel/gcc/files/4.4.0/gcc-4.4.1-solaris-x86_64.patch?format=txt
(sorry for the download)


-- 

grobian at gentoo dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |grobian at gentoo dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:55 -------
As long as there are any Solaris 2/x86 versions supported with 32-bit kernels,
we'll need to keep the i386-pc-solaris2* configurations, which handles creating
64-bit binaries just fine.  Adding an additional 64-bit default configuration
(like amd64-pc-solaris2* or whatever) doubles the testing burden on me for no
real benefit.  In fact, I believe that the sparcv9-sun-solaris2 configurations
were a mistake and should be removed, rather than adding this for Solaris
2/x86,
too.

I'll probably refuse patches to add them since they complicate the port for
little
apparent benefit.

With respect to multilib testing, this isn't enabled by default on any
platform;
you either need a dejagnu config file for that, or run

% make -k RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board "unix{,-m64}"'

You're right that this should be properly documented in the testing
instructions.
Please file a new PR for that issue.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2010-04-28 19:55:33
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 19:56 -------
As stated: closing as WONTFIX.


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 20:54 -------
*** Bug 30726 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pdb_ml at yahoo dot com dot
                   |                            |au


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 22:09 -------
> Adding an additional 64-bit default configuration
> (like amd64-pc-solaris2* or whatever) doubles the testing burden on me for no
> real benefit.  In fact, I believe that the sparcv9-sun-solaris2 configurations
> were a mistake and should be removed, rather than adding this for Solaris
> 2/x86, too.

While the advantages of sparc64-sun-solaris2.* are limited, I don't think we
should remove it now since it can handle more memory and 64-bit computing is
becoming the norm.

Similarly, I think adding a 64-bit compiler on x86 would be desirable.  And it
would be faster than the 32-bit one because of the 64-bit ABI.  As a matter of
fact, we already have the few required patches at AdaCore.


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE]

------- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE  2010-04-28 22:17 -------
Subject: Re:  Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).

> ------- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-28 22:09 -------

> While the advantages of sparc64-sun-solaris2.* are limited, I don't think we
> should remove it now since it can handle more memory and 64-bit computing is
> becoming the norm.

I have no actual intention of doing so, although it increases the
complexity of the target headers.

> Similarly, I think adding a 64-bit compiler on x86 would be desirable.  And it
> would be faster than the 32-bit one because of the 64-bit ABI.  As a matter of
> fact, we already have the few required patches at AdaCore.

Patches have been floating around, and I'm sure I could get them into
shape.  My problem (apart from the same complexity problem as on SPARC)
isn't primarily cpu power of my testfarm, but rather the time it takes
to analyze and fix problems.  This is practically doubled if you have
two different configurations to test, and I simply cannot afford that,
given that this is a spare-time activity.  That's why I'm even opposed
to take patches, since than I'm forced to deal with issues as well.

Since the Sun Studio compilers are still exclusively 32-bit as wall, I
see no strong reason for GCC to be different.

        Rainer


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-05-04 07:20 -------
>> ... the time it takes to analyze and fix problems.  This is practically
>> doubled if you have two different configurations to test, and I simply 
>> cannot afford that, given that this is a spare-time activity.  That's 
>> why I'm even opposed to take patches, since than I'm forced to deal 
>> with issues as well.
We hear you on that. 

This is an "Enhancement" (EG: I wish (someday in the future) that we had this
feature) and I would have preferred it remain open until the need for the
feature exceeded the lack of available time to implement it (as Eric pointed
out we may cross that line shortly).

I can settle for this being re-opening in the future and will accept WONTFIX
for now, (since it would be a fair bit of work to get everything working
correctly).

Rob


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE]

------- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE  2010-05-06 19:27 -------
Subject: Re:  Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).

> ------- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-05-04 07:20 -------

> This is an "Enhancement" (EG: I wish (someday in the future) that we had this
> feature) and I would have preferred it remain open until the need for the
> feature exceeded the lack of available time to implement it (as Eric pointed
> out we may cross that line shortly).

But what's the *point* of having such a configuration, except as a prove
of `we can do that'?  Any actual problem that would be solved this way?

        Rainer


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-06 19:54 -------
> But what's the *point* of having such a configuration, except as a prove
> of `we can do that'?  Any actual problem that would be solved this way?

Same as on Linux: the compiler will be faster and able to handle more memory.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #15 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-05-17 02:34 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Subject: Re:  Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
> i386-solaris*).
> 
> > ------- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-05-04 07:20 -------
> 
> > This is an "Enhancement" (EG: I wish (someday in the future) that we had this
> > feature) and I would have preferred it remain open ...
> 
> But what's the *point* of having such a configuration, except as a prove
> of `we can do that'?  Any actual problem that would be solved this way?
> 
>         Rainer
> 


(In reply to comment #13)
> Same as on Linux: the compiler will be faster and able to handle more memory.


OpenSolaris is 64 Bit; it's ability to run on older Hardware is a convenience,
not a requirement. Similarly gcc could output 80286 / 80387 code ONLY, for
Intel Platforms, as that would be easier also ...

Support for both modes (and more to come) is not so much "proof we can do that"
as it is the "normal thing" (compared to other Platforms) to do. The inability
of the "Build Mechanism" to operate in a similar manner (logic) as it does on
Linux is support of a third way of building gcc rather than proof that doing it
one way is easier.


OpenSolaris recently added support for the ARM Processor, so that adds a few
more 'multi-lib modes' that need to be supported, along with the expanded line
of SPARC Processors now being supported. The OpenSolaris Group also has a 'call
for Ports', so in theory our mechanism _must_ be general enough to support any
possible Processor (in the future, you don't need to do everything today!).


I would be more than happy to request from Oracle a "gcc Team" be created and
dispatched here. The result of a successful request _might_ be a tiny Team of
experts (OS Design / Compiler Writers) that would assist with Testing,
Patching, Solaris Expertise, and bring with them an assignment to a share of
the Server Farm. They have such a Liaison for most larger Programs and
supported Hardware. 

I can foresee one or two getting "assigned" and a half dozen or so volunteer
when they hear of your hardship ("... rather the time it takes
to analyze and fix problems.  This is practically doubled if you have
two different configurations to test, and I simply cannot afford that ...").


Do one of you wish to ask or shall I ? (Note: It might take 3-6 months to get
approved as some may be paid; so lets get started).


Rob


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #16 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-07-20 19:02 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > Subject: Re:  Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
> > i386-solaris*).
> > 
> > > ------- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-05-04 07:20 -------
> > 
> > > This is an "Enhancement" (EG: I wish (someday in the future) that we had this
> > > feature) and I would have preferred it remain open ...
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> OpenSolaris recently added support for the ARM Processor, so that adds a few
> more 'multi-lib modes' that need to be supported, along with the expanded line
> of SPARC Processors now being supported. The OpenSolaris Group also has a 'call
> for Ports', so in theory our mechanism _must_ be general enough to support any
> possible Processor ...
> ...
> Rob


Additional note for this RFE (which _might_ get re-opened, someday):

OpenSolaris now runs on mips-sun-solaris2.11
http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+mips/Tools

Rob


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE]

------- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE  2010-07-20 19:20 -------
Subject: Re:  Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).

> ------- Comment #16 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-07-20 19:02 -------
> (In reply to comment #15)
>> (In reply to comment #13)

>> OpenSolaris recently added support for the ARM Processor, so that adds a few
>> more 'multi-lib modes' that need to be supported, along with the expanded line

True, but irrelevant: each port only supports the multilibs it needs,
and not several different configurations with each from the set of
multilibs becoming the default.

>> of SPARC Processors now being supported. The OpenSolaris Group also has a 'call
>> for Ports', so in theory our mechanism _must_ be general enough to support any
>> possible Processor ...

The mechanism is, of course.

> Additional note for this RFE (which _might_ get re-opened, someday):
>
> OpenSolaris now runs on mips-sun-solaris2.11
> http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+mips/Tools

Far from it: there are minimal binutils and gcc patches yet, nothing
more.

        Rainer


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #18 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-07-21 23:17 -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> Subject: Re:  Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
> i386-solaris*).
> 
> > ------- Comment #16 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-07-20 19:02 -------
> > (In reply to comment #15)
> >> (In reply to comment #13)
> 
> >> OpenSolaris recently added support for the ARM Processor, so that adds a few
> >> more 'multi-lib modes' that need to be supported, along with the expanded line
> 
> True, but irrelevant: each port only supports the multilibs it needs,
> and not several different configurations with each from the set of
> multilibs becoming the default.
> 

Arm has thumb, and not, and either endian. It is not irrelevant and we do
understand you don't want the extra work - even reading the prior posts in this
thread. Noted.

> >> of SPARC Processors now being supported. The OpenSolaris Group also has a 'call
> >> for Ports', so in theory our mechanism _must_ be general enough to support any
> >> possible Processor ...
> 
> The mechanism is, of course.

If it were, we (meaning more people than only you and I) would not be debating
this.


> > Additional note for this RFE (which _might_ get re-opened, someday):
> >
> > OpenSolaris now runs on mips-sun-solaris2.11
> > http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+mips/Tools
> 
> Far from it: there are minimal binutils and gcc patches yet, nothing
> more.
> 
>         Rainer
> 

More for you to do ;) .

We wish you all the best, happy programming.
Rob


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #19 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2010-07-22 11:50 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> > Adding an additional 64-bit default configuration
> > (like amd64-pc-solaris2* or whatever) doubles the testing burden on me for no
> > real benefit.  In fact, I believe that the sparcv9-sun-solaris2 configurations
> > were a mistake and should be removed, rather than adding this for Solaris
> > 2/x86, too.
> While the advantages of sparc64-sun-solaris2.* are limited, I don't think we
> should remove it now since it can handle more memory and 64-bit computing is
> becoming the norm.
> Similarly, I think adding a 64-bit compiler on x86 would be desirable.  And it
> would be faster than the 32-bit one because of the 64-bit ABI.  As a matter of
> fact, we already have the few required patches at AdaCore.

Eric, here were my results when I tried a year and a half ago. Not too bad,
actually fairly good for a first attempt:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-02/msg01526.html

Rob


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

[rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #20 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-30 16:35 -------
I know this PR is closed, and don't want to reopen it or anything; sorry for
being late to the party.  But the information missing from it is that
  ../gcc/configure CC='gcc -m64' ...

should allow config.guess to infer 64-bit mode.  If install.texi does not
recommend putting ABI flags in $CC, then it probably should.


-- 

rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150