From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rainer Orth To: bkoz@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: libstdc++/2568 Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010525193600.25187.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-05/msg00818.html List-Id: The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/2568; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Rainer Orth To: Brad Lucier Cc: bkoz@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, David.Billinghurst@riotinto.com, neil@gcc.gnu.org, amacleod@cygnus.com (Andrew Macleod) Subject: Re: libstdc++/2568 Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 21:28:14 +0200 (MEST) Brad Lucier writes: > Is this on the 3.0 branch or on the trunk (3.1)? I don't care if 3.0 The 3.0 branch. I don't start working on the trunk until the 3.0 release is out of the door; I'd like to make sure as many problems as possible are fixed once GCC 3.0 goes out. > bootstraps on sparcv9 because I don't believe that 64-bit support > works on the branch because Jakub's subreg-byte patches have not been applied > there, and I can't find any code that looks like this in c-lex.c on the > trunk at all, i.e., I couldn't even apply this patch manually to the trunk. I'm not sure what I'll find, but I will compare make check results of * a sparc-sun-solaris2.8 configuration (sparcv7), * sparcv9-sun-solaris2.8 without multilib options (i.e. -m64) (sparcv9) * sparcv9-sun-solaris2.8 with -m32 (sparcv7) and maybe, time permitting, though this is by far the most interesting to me * bi-arch sparc-sun-solaris2.8 (default -m32) (sparcv7) * bi-arch sparc-sun-solaris2.8 -m64 (sparcv9) once I've re-enabled bi-arch/multilibbing for this configuration). Rainer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University Email: ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE