Re: Bootstrap failed on i386-pc-solaris2.10

Re: Bootstrap failed on i386-pc-solaris2.10

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 06:41:33PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 03:34:56PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > -		tmake_file="$tmake_file i386/t-crtstuff i386/t-sol2-10"
> > > +		tmake_file="$tmake_file i386/t-sol2-10"
> 
> > CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS in config/i386/t-sol2 should override the one
> > in i386/t-crtstuff anyway. Why didn't it happen? If it does
> > override the correct CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS, we need this patch. Othewise,
> > we need something different.
> 
> i386/t-sol2-10 != i386/t-sol2; t-sol2 came first.  Looks like you need
> to move t-crtstuff up before the Solaris 10 check, maybe?
> 

That is what I missed. Thanks.

This patch should work.


H.J.
----
2007-08-07  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>

	* config/i386/t-sol2-10 (CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS): Add -fPIC -O2.

--- gcc/config/i386/t-sol2-10.sol2	2006-11-18 06:26:01.000000000 -0800
+++ gcc/config/i386/t-sol2-10	2007-08-07 15:47:28.000000000 -0700
@@ -5,6 +5,11 @@ MULTILIB_OSDIRNAMES = . amd64
 LIBGCC = stmp-multilib
 INSTALL_LIBGCC = install-multilib
 
+# We must also enable optimization to avoid having any code appear
+# after the call & alignment statement, but before we switch back
+# to the .text section.
+CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS += -fPIC -O2
+
 # GCC contains i386 assembler sources for some of the startfiles
 # which aren't appropriate for amd64.  Just use the installed
 # versions of: crt1.o crti.o crtn.o gcrt1.o

Re: Bootstrap failed on i386-pc-solaris2.10

[Paolo Bonzini]

> That is what I missed. Thanks.
> 
> This patch should work.

Sure, but it makes the mess even worse.  You should instead:

- in config/t-svr4, change the two CFLAGS assignments to use +=
- in config/i386/t-sol2, change the CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS assignment to "+= 
-O2" and remove the TARGET_LIBGCC2_CFLAGS assignment
- in config.gcc, change

           tmake_file="t-sol2 i386/t-sol2 t-svr4"

to

           tmake_file="${tmake_file} t-sol2 i386/t-sol2 t-svr4"

and move it at the end of the case stanza, i.e. before

           ;;
   i[34567]86-*-sysv5*)           # Intel x86 on System V Release 5


Paolo

Re: Bootstrap failed on i386-pc-solaris2.10

[H.J. Lu]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 10:06:03AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> >That is what I missed. Thanks.
> >
> >This patch should work.
> 
> Sure, but it makes the mess even worse.  You should instead:
> 
> - in config/t-svr4, change the two CFLAGS assignments to use +=

There is

CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS_S = $(CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS) -fPIC

How do you use +=?

> - in config/i386/t-sol2, change the CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS assignment to "+= 
> -O2" and remove the TARGET_LIBGCC2_CFLAGS assignment
> - in config.gcc, change
> 
>           tmake_file="t-sol2 i386/t-sol2 t-svr4"
> 
> to
> 
>           tmake_file="${tmake_file} t-sol2 i386/t-sol2 t-svr4"
> 
> and move it at the end of the case stanza, i.e. before
> 
>           ;;
>   i[34567]86-*-sysv5*)           # Intel x86 on System V Release 5
> 

There are so many changes and I can't test any of them. I will leave
them to someone who can test. I will be happy to back out:

-               tmake_file="$tmake_file i386/t-sol2-10"
+               tmake_file="$tmake_file i386/t-crtstuff i386/t-sol2-10"

in the mean time.

H.J.

Re: Bootstrap failed on i386-pc-solaris2.10

[Paolo Bonzini]

> CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS_S = $(CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS) -fPIC
> 
> How do you use +=?

Sorry, I was looking at an old checkout.

Could you simply test patching config/i386/t-crtstuff like this:

-CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS = -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
+CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
-fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables

(It would be great if you, H.J., tested on Linux, and Art tested on 
Solaris 10).

Thanks,

Paolo

RE: Bootstrap failed on i386-pc-solaris2.10

[Arthur Haas]

> -----Original Message-----
> [ ... snip ... ]
> 
> > CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS_S = $(CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS) -fPIC
> > 
> > How do you use +=?
> 
> Sorry, I was looking at an old checkout.
> 
> Could you simply test patching config/i386/t-crtstuff like this:
> 
> -CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS = -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
> -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
> +CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
> -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
> 
> (It would be great if you, H.J., tested on Linux, and Art tested on 
> Solaris 10).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo

Hi.

Making the change above results in a successful build. Quite a
difference what a '+' can make.

Art Haas

Re: Bootstrap failed on i386-pc-solaris2.10

[H.J. Lu]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 09:45:00AM -0500, Arthur Haas wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > [ ... snip ... ]
> > 
> > > CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS_S = $(CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS) -fPIC
> > > 
> > > How do you use +=?
> > 
> > Sorry, I was looking at an old checkout.
> > 
> > Could you simply test patching config/i386/t-crtstuff like this:
> > 
> > -CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS = -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
> > -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
> > +CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer 
> > -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
> > 
> > (It would be great if you, H.J., tested on Linux, and Art tested on 
> > Solaris 10).
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Paolo
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Making the change above results in a successful build. Quite a
> difference what a '+' can make.
> 

This patch works fine on Linux/x86 and Linux/x86-64.


H.J.
---
2007-08-08  Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@lu.unisi.ch>

	* config/i386/t-crtstuff (CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS): Use +=.

--- gcc/config/i386/t-crtstuff.sol2	2007-08-06 17:05:40.000000000 -0700
+++ gcc/config/i386/t-crtstuff	2007-08-08 06:56:17.000000000 -0700
@@ -4,4 +4,4 @@
 # section.  -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables is off by default for i386
 # and is on by default for x86-64.  We turn it off for both i386 and
 # x86-64.
-CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS = -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
+CRTSTUFF_T_CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables

Re: Bootstrap failed on i386-pc-solaris2.10

[Paolo Bonzini]

>> Making the change above results in a successful build. Quite a
>> difference what a '+' can make.
>>
> 
> This patch works fine on Linux/x86 and Linux/x86-64.

Thanks!

Paolo