From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13403 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2002 22:16:02 -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 13384 invoked by uid 71); 21 Apr 2002 22:16:01 -0000 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 15:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020421221601.13383.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Subject: Re: c/6300: sparcv9-sun-solaris2.7 gcc-3.1 C testsuite failure in gcc.dg/cpp/charconst.c Reply-To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01089.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/6300; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" To: zack@codesourcery.com Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: c/6300: sparcv9-sun-solaris2.7 gcc-3.1 C testsuite failure in gcc.dg/cpp/charconst.c Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 18:11:36 -0400 (EDT) > From: Zack Weinberg > > An i686-linux -> sparcv9-solaris2.7 cross compiler produces > > charconst.c:10:5: empty character constant > charconst.c:12:5: empty character constant > charconst.c:14:5: warning: character constant too long > charconst.c:16:5: warning: character constant too long > charconst.c:19:5: warning: multi-character character constant > charconst.c:24:11: empty character constant > charconst.c:25:7: empty character constant > charconst.c:27:7: warning: character constant too long > charconst.c:28:7: warning: character constant too long > charconst.c:31:7: warning: multi-character character constant > > which is the expected result. Can you still reproduce the problem? > zw Yes, however now it appears on plain sparc- targets, not sparcv9- because of some config.guess hackery that was eventually reverted. (See the 4/18 comment I added to the PR description field.) Sorry if this is confusing, but there was a short period where some unrelated patches were installed which changed the meaning of sparc- vs sparcv9- vs sparc64-. After the dust settled, it was reverted by rth. But I had reported the problem while my host temporarily called itself sparcv9-. Now that's gone and you should see the bug on sparc-sun-solaris2.7. I updated the PR to explain that but I guess I wasn't clear or needed to cc you directly. Sorry if I caused you to waste some time but hopefully you can reproduce the problem using the right target. --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi Director of Systems Architecture ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Global Services