From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16783 invoked by alias); 21 May 2003 16:56:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16741 invoked from network); 21 May 2003 16:56:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO CSDNT99.cdcgy.com) (209.167.52.158) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 May 2003 16:56:22 -0000 Received: from bowman.bowman.gdcanada.com ([172.30.254.5]) by CSDNT99.cdcgy.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id KM0SKYL4; Wed, 21 May 2003 10:55:09 -0600 Received: from d1d6k111.bowman.gdcanada.com (d1d6k111.bowman.gdcanada.com [172.30.254.11]) by bowman.bowman.gdcanada.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947D84A429; Wed, 21 May 2003 10:55:38 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: failure building gcc-3.3 (broken libiberty/vsprintf.c or build?) From: Randy Rude To: Peter Barada Cc: peter@baradas.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, crossgcc@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <200305211509.h4LF98K00400@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com> References: <20030520053204.ADDB298982@baradas.org> <3EC9F529.6060106@luukku.com> <20030521034551.108CE98982@baradas.org> <20030521063417.3C30B98982@baradas.org> <1053527958.14557.1.camel@d1d6k111.bowman.gdcanada.com> <200305211509.h4LF98K00400@hyper.wm.sps.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 16:56:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1053536138.14557.7.camel@d1d6k111.bowman.gdcanada.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01946.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 09:09, Peter Barada wrote: > > >This looks familiar. Try applying the hashtab.c portion of this patch: > >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-04/msg00726.html > > Cool, I'll try it and see what happens. > > I'm wondering why you didn't file a PR back in April against gcc-3.3 > that stated that m68k-elf won't build? At least that way someone > would have *seen* that its broken and hopefully would've applied your > patch(or created a better one). I'm also wondering how many newlib > targets are affected by this bug? I have to plead ignorance of the process. I sent this patch to both you and gcc-patches. I assumed that would trigger someone into filing a PR. Apparently I assumed incorrectly? Randy