From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-116575-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31889 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2005 23:45:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 31865 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2005 23:45:36 -0000
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:45:36 +0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5TNiTwk017796;
	Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:44:29 -0400
Received: from vpn26-6.sfbay.redhat.com (vpn26-6.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.26.6])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j5TNiSu07633;
	Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:44:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Re: hpux regression vs 4.0.1
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@redhat.com>
Reply-To: law@redhat.com
To: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
        Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay@redhat.com>, tromey@redhat.com,
        Java Patch List <java-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <20050629231718.GA10549@synopsys.com>
References: <m3d5q5b0pw.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
	 <42C2ECA9.3050707@redhat.com> <42C30712.5070109@codesourcery.com>
	 <1120081999.4621.200.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20050629231718.GA10549@synopsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:45:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1120088666.4621.207.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01286.txt.bz2

On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 16:17 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 03:53:18PM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > (*)  The hpux11 target description assumes that the linker shipped with
> > hpux11 supports +init as an option.  Well, that may work OK for some
> > versions of hpux11, but it certainly doesn't work for hpux11.00 with
> > the 990903 version of the linker.  Grrr.
> 
> I have an hpux11.0 box available, and could run tests of your patch
> if you like.
I doubt it would have (or will make) much of a difference at this
point.  I don't think anyone could have predicted the muck-up with
the arguments passed to ld and the re-bootstrap that had to run
after working around it.

As long as I don't kill this 3rd machine I think we'll be OK.

jeff