From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-389267-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3175 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2012 17:24:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 3159 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Apr 2012 17:24:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
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, 18 Apr 2012 17:23:27 +0000
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/52878] [4.8 regression] bootstrap failure: "MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128" redefined
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:24:00 -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: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-52878-4-byQkjMfXnV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-52878-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-52878-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg01549.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52878

--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-18 17:23:24 UTC ---
> I've combined HJ's two patches to one and verified that it restores bootstrap
> on sparc64-linux.

But it probably breaks SPARC/Solaris, as TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 must be
non-zero for this target.  MASK_LONG_DOUBLE_128 and TARGET_LONG_DOUBLE_128 must
always be defined to meaningful values, irrespective of whether
long-double-switch.opt is included; that's why sparc.opt also contains the
entry.

If the original patch breaks this mechanism, it should IMO provide a general
replacement, as other architectures might be affected.