From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30110 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2012 22:55:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 30102 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2012 22:55:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_VIA_APNIC X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from comm.purplecow.org (HELO comm.purplecow.org) (210.87.62.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:55:28 +0000 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Received: from comm.purplecow.org ([127.0.0.1]) by comm.purplecow.org (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-6.03 (built Mar 14 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0MDE00F01D0ECP20@comm.purplecow.org> for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:55:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from comm.purplecow.org ([127.0.0.1] helo=comm.purplecow.org) with IPv4:25 by ASSP.nospam; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:55:26 +1100 Received: from [66.103.52.207] by comm.purplecow.org (mshttpd); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:55:26 -0500 From: Dennis Clarke To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Ryan Johnson , Ian Lance Taylor , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org, ebotcazou@adacore.com Message-id: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:55:00 -0000 Subject: Re: the struggle for a 64-bit GCC on Solaris 10 - part 2 In-reply-to: References: <50A16762.7050202@cs.utoronto.ca> <50A16CF5.4080609@cs.utoronto.ca> 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/msg00092.txt.bz2 > On 12 November 2012 22:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 12 November 2012 22:37, Dennis Clarke wrote: > >> > >> I'm giving this a try : > >> > >> CC='gcc -m64 -D__XOPEN_SOURCE=600 -g' > >> > >> ... thus far it has not blown up in 71 secs. :-\ > > > > It will fail with the same error in prettyprint.g > > That should be pretty-print.c 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. Dennis