Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with internal error

Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with internal error

[ehrhardt]

Synopsis: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with internal error

State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: cae
State-Changed-When: Wed May 21 09:41:41 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    See Dara's question.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=6680

Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with internal error

[Dara Hazeghi]

The following reply was made to PR bootstrap/6680; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com>
To: sabelka@iue.tuwien.ac.at, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with internal error
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 01:21:44 -0700

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit- 
 trail&database=gcc&pr=6680
 
 Hello,
 
 would it be possible for you to check whether the problem in this  
 report still occurs with the most current version of gcc (3.3) or the  
 cvs 3.3 branch? I believe some progress has been made in this area.  
 Thanks,
 
 Dara
 

Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with internal error

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1001 bytes --]

The following reply was made to PR bootstrap/6680; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with
 internal error
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 09:16:08 -0600 (CST)

 This valuable piece of information may get things going on osf50.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:           bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth
 
 
 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:27:12 +0100
 From: Emmanuel Thomé <thome@lix.polytechnique.fr>
 To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
 Subject: Re: ICE/bootstrap alpha*-dec-osf5.0
 
 
 The build process completes with -fno-reorder-blocks passed as
 BOOT_CFLAGS ; Rainer Sabelka found this, he is currently ttrying to
 investigate things further.
 
 E.
 

Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with internal error

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1645 bytes --]

The following reply was made to PR bootstrap/6680; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: bootstrap/6680: [alphaev5-dec-osf5.0] gcc-3.1 build fails with
 internal error
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:37:24 -0600 (CST)

 The following mail caused me to close all the duplicates listed below, 
 except 6680. For the record, I send this mail to the audit trail of 6680.
 W.
 
 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:54:36 +0100
 From: Emmanuel Thomé <thome@lix.polytechnique.fr>
 To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
 Subject: Re: ICE/bootstrap alpha*-dec-osf5.0
 
 
 OK, I'll contact the persons you mention.
 
 > > P.S: Perhaps most if not all of these PR's could be collapsed to a
 > > single one ?
 > > [...]
 > 
 > Oh yes, I would be happy to do this. Can you indicate which of these I can 
 > close and which other report I should reference in the closing message? 
 > The bug database has become so large that it has become nearly unusable, 
 > and it is really necessary to reduce same cases to only one 
 > representative.
 
 Then I'm 100% sure that PRs # 6680, 6766, 7509, 7626, 7747, 7777, 8452, 6796
 are duplicates of the same bug. The six other PRs I mention in my mail
 might be related to the same issue, but that's unclear.
 
 So this makes for 8 PRs that you can collapse into a single one ! None
 of them is significantly more accurate than the others, so picking a
 random one would do. Perhaps the one PR that you keep should include a
 reference to the ones that have been closed.
 
 Greetings,
 
 E.