From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-13370-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30512 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2002 00:00:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30466 invoked by uid 61); 2 Jan 2002 00:00:24 -0000
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 16:00:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20020102000024.30465.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: apbianco@redhat.com, rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
  gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, sefer@hotmail.com
From: rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org
Reply-To: rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org, apbianco@redhat.com, rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org,
  gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org,
  sefer@hotmail.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailer: gnatsweb 2.9.3
Subject: Re: bootstrap/4989: Bootstrap on Linux x86 fails.
X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

Synopsis: Bootstrap on Linux x86 fails.

State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: rodrigc
State-Changed-When: Tue Jan  1 16:00:23 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    apbianco@redhat.com sent this e-mail out before,
    but it looks like it got garbled and inserted into the
    Fix section of this PR.
    
    Are you still getting the same problem?
    Can you follow these instructions and give us your feedback?
    
    Thanks.
    
    ======
    I haven't bootstrapped in a long time, but I would suspect
                   a lot of people are doing that on x86 (with all the language
                   support you're requesting.)
    
                   If this persists, you should send email to java@gcc.gnu.org,
                   since the Boehm GC is a part of the GCC Java runtime.
    
                   Note that the pre-processor might have changed recently
                   in order to be more compliant, although I couldn't find
                   evidences of it -- this error mode has been in effect for
                   a while. 
    
                   So it could be a configuration problem where you end up
                   with an improperly #define'ed macro.
    
                   Could you try the same libtool invokation along with the 
                   `-E'  flag and post the results?
    
                   Thank you.
    
                   We'll see what really gets cpp upset.
    ======================================================

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=4989