From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17315 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2012 23:26:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 17292 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2012 23:26:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,WEIRD_QUOTING X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-ie0-f175.google.com) (209.85.223.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:26:01 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id c13so10345530ieb.20 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:26:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.151.238 with SMTP id ut14mr9306920igb.58.1352762760869; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:26:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.158.202 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:26:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <50A16762.7050202@cs.utoronto.ca> <50A16CF5.4080609@cs.utoronto.ca> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: the struggle for a 64-bit GCC on Solaris 10 - part 2 From: Jonathan Wakely To: Dennis Clarke Cc: Ryan Johnson , Ian Lance Taylor , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org, ebotcazou@adacore.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00099.txt.bz2 On 12 November 2012 22:55, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > I think at this point I am left wondering where the bug is. There must be a "bug" somewhere > because this process of just bootstrapping should work. It doesn't. I just don't see that filing > a bug report to Oracle would get me anywhere. > > Really, I'm trying to get a result here .. and not getting very far. Maybe a change in > pretty-print.c is needed .. not sure. > > I'll stop what I am doing and try again with -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 and then if it blows up > in the usual 71 secs .. that's it. Give up on Solaris 10. I've just successfully bootstrapped x86_64-pc-solaris2.10 using GCC 4.4.3 as the bootstrap compiler, with in-tree gmp/mpfr/mpc, without setting any CFLAGS at all, just CC='gcc -m64' CXX='g++ -m64' ../gcc-4.7.2/configure --build=x86_64-pc-solaris2.10 I had no problems with the iconv() definition in pretty-print.c, my builddir/gcc/config.log shows it wasn't found: | /* end confdefs.h. */ | #include | #include | int | main () | { | iconv_t cd = iconv_open("",""); | iconv(cd,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL); | iconv_close(cd); | ; | return 0; | } configure:10309: gcc -m64 -o conftest -g -fkeep-inline-functions -I/usr/local/include conftest.c /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so -L/usr/local/lib -L/usr/openwin/lib -L/usr/local/ssl/lib -L/usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.2/lib -R/usr/local/lib >&5 ld: fatal: file /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS32 Which means the code failing for you in pretty-print.c isn't compiled, because of: #if defined ENABLE_NLS && defined HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET && HAVE_ICONV On your system presumably builddir/gcc/config.log shows iconv() is found, and so configure defines HAVE_ICONV. What does 'grep builddir/gcc/config.log' show? What does 'env | grep PATH' show? Do you have something in your LD_LIBRARY_PATH which causes the failing test above to pass? I think the bug is that the configure test for iconv only tests: iconv(cd,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL); which doesn't check for a POSIX-conforming signature.