From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-30614-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1883 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2003 09:36:01 -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 1869 invoked by uid 71); 7 Mar 2003 09:36:01 -0000
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 09:36:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030307093601.1868.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: <martin@bruli.net>
Subject: Re: optimization/8873: Optimization on alpha (ev5)
Reply-To: <martin@bruli.net>
X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00344.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR optimization/8873; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: <martin@bruli.net>
To: <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: optimization/8873: Optimization on alpha (ev5)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:30:18 +0100

  > The last gcc version you can compile and run all off
  > - linux-2.4
  > - glibc-2.2.5
  > - modutils-2.4
  > is 2.95.3. All later version will generate invalid (not runnable
  > code) on my alphas. And I have tested _all_ versions after 2.95.3.
  > No I went back to 2.95.3 with the disadvantage that the most
  > recent glibc version that can be compiled is 2.2.5.
  
  Which versions did you try?
 
 All.
 
 - 3.0.1
 - 3.0.2
 - 3.0.3
 - 3.0.4
 - 3.1
 - 3.1.1
 - 3.2
 - 3.2.1
 
 This took me about one year! Because after compile and install
 of the compile I rebuilt or at least I tried to rebuild all of
 
 1. binutils
 2. gcc again, with the new binutils from step 1
 3. linux kernel
 4. modutils
 5. glibc-2.2.5
 
 After the rebuild of all this I run the new installation and
 tested out some applications including
 
 - apache
 - mysql
 - squid
 - ssh
 - wu-ftpd
 - openssl
 - ISC bind
 - gdb
 
 The test consisted of compile/build, install and run some test
 scripts comparing the results to the correct results generated
 on a gcc-2.95.3 based installation.
 
 When ever I found fatal errors I went to the next gcc version
 starting at the beginning of the build process but it got worse
 from version to version.
 
 At the end I gave up and reinstalled the system totally based on
 gcc-2.95.3. - That's the story.
 
 
 Regards,
 
 -- Martin