From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30717 invoked by alias); 4 Oct 2011 16:21:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 30520 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Oct 2011 16:21:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:21:29 +0000 From: "ro at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/49804] [4.7 regression] 20110709 to 20110716 on sparc64 freebsd9.0 Configuration mismatch! [libgcc-extra-parts] Error Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:21:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ro at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status AssignedTo Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00201.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49804 Rainer Orth changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ro at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth 2011-10-04 16:20:49 UTC --- Created attachment 25412 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25412 proposed patch Unfortunately, my patch still hasn't been reviewed, so some solution is required in the interrim. Nobody has cared to try my (verbally described) patch on FreeBSD/SPARC (or at least nobody reported the result), still here's the proposed patch. Could some- one please try it and report back, so I can formally submit it? Thanks. Rainer