From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2679 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2011 16:43:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 2670 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2011 16:43:30 -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; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:43:18 +0000 From: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/50237] [4.7 regression] bootstrap comparison failure for libcpp/lex.o Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:52:00 -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: critical X-Bugzilla-Who: hjl.tools at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 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: 2011-11/txt/msg02334.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50237 --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu 2011-11-23 16:42:43 UTC --- (In reply to comment #24) > > --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu 2011-11-22 18:03:09 UTC --- > > (In reply to comment #22) > >> But this is the common case: you cannot expect or require the bootstrap > >> compiler to use the same linker as you configure with. This is a > >> bootstrap failure which is going to get us much noise if not fixed. > >> > > > > Have you tried the patch in comment 18? > > Not yet, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong: In stage 1, the bootstrap > compiler needn't be gcc, thus may not understand -B, so the result would > be wrong even if you configure with gld 2.22. I don't understand why > you go through so many contortions, full of unwarranted assumptions, > when a simple check for gld >= 2.22 (or 2.21.9x if absolutely necessary) > would do. If other linkers gain the same support, the test can be > augmented accordingly. I know this is ugly and real feature checks are > the preferred way, but they are notoriously hard to get right portably, > so many of them already go this route. > Checking linker version is inaccurate since this feature requires support in assembler, linker as well as libc. We can disable it by' default when 2 linkers are used.