From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32193 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2002 05:26:01 -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 32179 invoked by uid 71); 31 Mar 2002 05:26:00 -0000 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020331052600.32178.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Subject: Re: java/6092: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 has hundreds of libjava failures with -m64 Reply-To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg01284.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR java/6092; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: java/6092: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 has hundreds of libjava failures with -m64 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:25:12 -0500 (EST) > From: Tom Tromey > > Kaveh> That seems ok. So I ran it and got: > Kaveh> Abort (core dumped) > > Ok. Often symptoms like this will mean some pretty low-level problem, > like binutils failure or some basic problem with the port. I think you may be right about the low-level problem. (But note, I'm using native as/ld, not binutils.) Also, some of the cases weren't crashing but having output diffs with the expected results, so there may be more than one problem here. > Kaveh> If you'd like me to attempt anything else let me know. > Kaveh> Alternatively, you could get a solaris2 box and run make check > Kaveh> with: setenv RUNTESTFLAGS "--verbose > Kaveh> --target_board='unix{-m64,}'" to get both regular and -m64 > Kaveh> passes. > > I finally read about -m64 in the manual. It sets the pointer size to > 64 bits. I think you would have to build the entire runtime with -m64 > for this to even have a chance of working. > > For instance, "hello world" with gcj needs a virtual method call. If > the hello program and the runtime disagree on pointer size, this is > going to fail. > > Is there some mitigating factor I'm unaware of? I'm inclined to say > that this isn't really a bug, and that you must make a -m64 multilib > if you want that to work. > Tom No I think it's really a bug. If you look back, I specifically showed the `ldd' results to prove I was using the correct shared libs for 64-bit compilation. (The sparcv9 multilibs *are* built with -m64.) --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi Director of Systems Architecture ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Global Services