[Bug bootstrap/44959] [4.5 Regression] bootstrap failed at Comparing stages 2 and 3

["htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959

--- Comment #23 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> 2012-05-08 20:48:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> > --- Comment #21 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> 2012-05-08 14:15:52 UTC ---
> 
> I think there was a misunderstanding: I specificially asked for the
> smallest of the differing .o files *other than cc1*-checksum.o* since
> the latter are expected to differ between stages.  But for the moment, I
> think we can do with cc1-checksum.o alone.

Okay, sorry about that.

> > There are two curious things:
> > 1. why does the 2nd stage drops to only about 600 byte. (I assume 20-30k is
> > normal).
> 
> That's certainly completely unexpected.  I'd ask you to rebuild
> cc1-checksum.o for stage2 and stage3 (move the .o's aside, run make -n
> cc1-checksum.o, then manually add -v -save-temps to the compilation
> line.  Then attach a tarball with the .c and output files and the gcc -v
> output to see if there are any obvious diffences between the compilations.

I'll get round to it when I find some time to do so, soon.

> > 2. I did have a success with 4.6.1 (and I believe with both make/make
> > bootstrap4 or 4-lean) a while ago, therefore I closed the bug. I did not
> 
> Please always try this with a plain make/make bootstrap.  I don't
> currently want to debug issues which might be caused by non-default
> targets.  I don't see why they should be, but please let us stay with
> the basics.

Out of the three attachments, one is with plain make, the other two, one with
bootstrap4 and bootstrap4-lean. (I think I tried them in the order of 4-lean,
4, plain - so you could see which is which from the time stamp). I know what
you are saying, that's why I tried it simplier and simpler :-(.

> > install 4.6.1 at the time but stayed at 4.3.3 (mostly to test and verify the
> > other issues), but now I cannot build 4.6.1 correctly again. The system has not
> > been changed much since then, the only changes I can think of which is relevant
> > is that I installed updated versions of the gcc dependencies
> > (mpfr-3.1.0,mpc-0.9,gmp-5.0.5)
> > from the most updated versions the last time I looked at gcc.
> 
> This is certainly a problem: the installation guide states
> 
>    Several support libraries are necessary to build GCC, some are required,
>    others optional. While any sufficiently new version of required tools
>    usually work, library requirements are generally stricter. Newer
>    versions may work in some cases, but it's safer to use the exact
>    versions documented. We appreciate bug reports about problems with newer
>    versions, though.
> 
> The sentence about newer versions is there for a reason.  In fact, on
> Tru64 UNIX the situation is even worse: gmp 4.3.2 make check fails for
> me, so I'm currently staying with gmp 4.2.1, mpfr 2.3.2, and mpc 0.8.
> 
> Before using *any* version of gmp/mpfr/mpc with gcc (or for any other
> purpose), make sure that they pass make check, as prominently stated in
> e.g. the gmp announcements.
> 
>     Rainer

Argh :-(. I did run make check on one of them (gmp?) because it says so at the
end of make or 'make install', and it finished okay.

I can certainly go back - if it is worthwhile. I'll try to re-do the checksum
object files first.