From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28012 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2002 20:56:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27965 invoked by uid 71); 18 Feb 2002 20:56:02 -0000 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020218205602.27959.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: ro@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Richard B. Kreckel" Subject: Re: target/5505: Doubts about a patch for OSF Reply-To: "Richard B. Kreckel" X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/5505; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Richard B. Kreckel" To: Rainer Orth Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/5505: Doubts about a patch for OSF Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:49:22 +0100 (CET) On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Richard B. Kreckel wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Fine. Instead of patching the whole machine, it should be sufficient to > > just drop a copy of the patched ld in > > $prefix/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-dec-osf5.1/3.0.4/ld. > > The machine isn't operated by myself, unfortunately. I have to wait for a > planned downtime tomorrow. Then, the machine will be patched. > > [...] > > I've re-bootstrapped GCC 3.0.4 20020129 with no regressions compared to > > 3.0.2 20010921, and this version still creates a working CLN 1.1.4 which > > passes make check. I've even tried to drop the Tru64 UNIX V5.1 ld (before > > any patches) into the gcc tree as mentioned above and rebuilt CLN, which > > keeps working. This may mean that ld isn't the culprit or the error only > > happens when linking libstdc++. > > Thanks for this piece of information. After our last email I had grown > suspicious, too, about ld being the only reason for this failure... Sigh. Finally they have patched the machine up to ld from patch 358 -- sorry it took so long. Unfortunately, the problem does not go away. I have bootstrapped gcc-3.0.3 and compiled CLN from scratch and it still complains about multiple symbols and crashes upon execution. So I have still no idea what is needed for gcc to function properly and, hence, cannot provide a proper documentation patch. I'm afraid, this is as good as it gets, unless somebody can come up with an educated guess what to try next. Regards -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel