From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 450 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 15:14:22 -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 427 invoked by uid 61); 9 Apr 2002 15:14:21 -0000 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 08:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020409151421.426.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at From: davem@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: davem@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/6237: libffi/configure bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.8 X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00536.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: libffi/configure bootstrap failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.8 State-Changed-From-To: feedback->analyzed State-Changed-By: davem State-Changed-When: Tue Apr 9 08:14:20 2002 State-Changed-Why: Nevermind, I know what causes this now. We always build 64-bit binaries for solaris7 and later even if isainfo says we are running a 32-bit kernel. The interesting question is what do we do when we cross to solaris7, build 32-bit binaries only? That sounds really stupid. If only Sun hadn't buggered up 64-bit on the earlier Ultra chips we wouldn't have this problem :( http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6237