From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14838 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2012 21:41:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 14825 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2012 21:41:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bureau81.ns.utoronto.ca (HELO bureau81.ns.utoronto.ca) (128.100.132.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:40:58 +0000 Received: from [142.1.102.176] (dhcphost-ic176.utsc.utoronto.ca [142.1.102.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by bureau81.ns.utoronto.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qACLeqC1015261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:40:54 -0500 Message-ID: <50A16CF5.4080609@cs.utoronto.ca> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:41:00 -0000 From: Ryan Johnson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dennis Clarke CC: Jonathan Wakely , Ian Lance Taylor , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org, ebotcazou@adacore.com Subject: Re: the struggle for a 64-bit GCC on Solaris 10 - part 2 References: <50A16762.7050202@cs.utoronto.ca> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00084.txt.bz2 On 12/11/2012 4:32 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jonathan Wakely > Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 4:26 pm > Subject: Re: the struggle for a 64-bit GCC on Solaris 10 - part 2 > To: Dennis Clarke > Cc: Ryan Johnson , Ian Lance Taylor , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org, ebotcazou@adacore.com > > >> On 12 November 2012 21:20, Dennis Clarke wrote: >>>> I'm still really unclear on why you're having so much trouble with >>>> this. >>>> Have you tried bootstrapping with SunCC like I did? Granted, I'm only >>>> on >>>> 5.9, but if newer versions fall down that's Oracle's fault, not gcc's. >>> Since this is a purely gcc 4.7.2 bootstrapped with gcc 4.5.1 as the >> compiler then it would be >>> entirely in GCC land and not Oracle. >> Except that the system headers which declare the problem function come >> from Oracle. And that doesn't answer the question. > No .. I have gone digging to see what is going on in there but it is deep, wide and dark. > > I did file a bug report : > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55293 > > I hope I don't have to go fire up my old Solaris 8 server but, it did always result in a good looking GCC bootstrap. You still didn't say why starting with the Solaris compiler is so undesirable... you do realize that the gcc you finally end up with (stage 3) will have been built by a gcc (stage 2) that was itself built by the gcc (stage 1) produced by suncc, right? Bootstrapping a separate version of gcc yourself just to build that stage 1 gcc with adds extra (and painful and unnecessary) steps to the process. In the time you've spent writing these emails, a sunc-based bootstrap could have completed several times, modulo those funky CFLAGS you added. Heck, you could have bootstrapped 4.7.2 and then used *that* to bootstrap a "clean" 4.7.2 in the time these emails have taken so far.