Re: Lost specific.html FAQ Entry

Re: Lost specific.html FAQ Entry

[Russ Allbery]

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:

> Index: specific.html

>> <h3><a name="elf_targets">all ELF targets (SVR4, Solaris, etc.)</a></h3>
>> 
>> <p>C++ support is significantly better on ELF targets if you use the GNU
>> linker; duplicate copies of inlines, vtables and template instantiations
>> will be discarded automatically.</p>

FYI, GNU ld from binutils 2.9.1 fails to successfully link Perl 5.005_03
on Solaris 2.6.  I haven't tried other versions of Solaris.  (Perl's hint
files try to keep you from using GNU ld on Solaris, saying that it won't
work correctly, and they are apparently entirely correct since overriding
that results in a non-functional Perl build.)

I was going to install gcc 2.95.1 here to use GNU ld on Solaris, given the
above note, but that was a sufficiently severe problem to cause me to drop
back to the vendor linker.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ >

GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.htmlFAQEntry)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On 27 Aug 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:
> FYI, GNU ld from binutils 2.9.1 fails to successfully link Perl 5.005_03
> on Solaris 2.6.  I haven't tried other versions of Solaris.  (Perl's hint
> files try to keep you from using GNU ld on Solaris, saying that it won't
> work correctly, and they are apparently entirely correct since overriding
> that results in a non-functional Perl build.)

Russ, thanks for your data points concerning Solaris!

Folks, we have had an incredible number of problem reports concerning
Solaris (mostly Solaris 7, binutils vs vendor tools, Sun make vs gmake...)
for 2.95.x.

Here is what we I think we should do about that:

 1. I have already performed a couple of updates to
    http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ but it seems we still need some
    further ones.

    Patches and hints are most welcome, as are updates to existing stuff.

 2. Shall we actually recommend against GNU ld for Solaris targets?

 3. Which versions of Sun make are sufficiently POSIX compliant for a
    srcdir != objdir bootstrap? Which are not?

 4. Perhaps there are GNU make specific features in some of our Makefiles?
    I vaguely remember some portability(?) patches several months ago,
    which were supposed to allow for srcdir != objdir builds with Sun make.

 5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
    to the binutils developers resp. Sun?

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Russ Allbery]

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:

>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?

I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.  If people
think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and put together a
fuller problem report.  Perl makes extensive use of dynamically loaded
modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that when all of Perl was
linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic modules that it had just
built.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ >

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[H.J. Lu]

> 
> Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> 
> >  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
> >     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?
> 
> I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
> that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.  If people
> think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and put together a
> fuller problem report.  Perl makes extensive use of dynamically loaded
> modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that when all of Perl was
> linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic modules that it had just
> built.
> 

There are known bugs in binutils 2.9.1 on Solaris/Sparc. Quite a few
Solaris/Sparc bugs have been fixed in binutils in cvs.


-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQ Entry)

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> Folks, we have had an incredible number of problem reports concerning
> Solaris (mostly Solaris 7, binutils vs vendor tools, Sun make vs gmake...)
> for 2.95.x.

>  4. Perhaps there are GNU make specific features in some of our Makefiles?
>     I vaguely remember some portability(?) patches several months ago,
>     which were supposed to allow for srcdir != objdir builds with Sun make.

Most of those patches made it into the source.

I made a (hopefully vague) promise at that time about making a patch
for the egcstensions page.  I've finally fulfilled that and made
one that people can apply to the gcc-2.95.1 release (only).
Please refer to
<URL: http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/gcc-patches/1999-08/msg00943.html >.

If nobody does it sooner (preferably), I'll send patches for
egcstensions.html and install/specific.html.

Note that it seems I failed to foil the archive engine into *not*
archiving the patch as a separate attachment, to avoid "patch"
complications.  So I also put it at
<URL: ftp://ftp.axis.se/pub/users/hp/gcc/gcc-2.95.1-sun-make-patch1.txt >.
If you prefer, feel free to put it at gcc.gnu.org.

brgds, H-P

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On 28 Aug 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?
> I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
> that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.

It might be the case that there were a couple of bugs, so providing some
new feedback that it still does not work could prove rather useful.

> If people think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and
> put together a fuller problem report.  Perl makes extensive use of
> dynamically loaded modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that
> when all of Perl was linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic
> modules that it had just built.

HJ Lu mentioned that the CVS versions of binutils have a couple of
SPARC-related issues fixed, perhaps you can give that a try?

(I don't have the URL, but I am sure someone on this list will provide
it.)

Thanks,
Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Russ Allbery]

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> On 28 Aug 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:

>>>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug
>>>     reports to the binutils developers resp. Sun?

>> I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
>> that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.

> It might be the case that there were a couple of bugs, so providing some
> new feedback that it still does not work could prove rather useful.

Oh, thanks for following up, I might have forgotten to mention.

Since the last message, I sent in some patches to Perl so that it would
correctly detect what ld gcc 2.95.1 was using, and ended up looking at the
hints file in the development version of Perl.  Turns out that the problem
these days with GNU ld isn't a bug but rather a difference in behavior
between Solaris ld and GNU ld in how they add symbols to the dynamic
symbol table.  Passing -E to GNU ld is rumored to allow Perl to build
correctly.

(It's getting to be a full-time job just updating one's mental map of what
software packages work where!)

I've since moved on to other projects and probably won't have the time to
go back and check with GNU ld in the near future, but based on that (and
the report of Solaris fixes in the CVS tree), I'll give GNU ld another
shot on Solaris the next time I rebuild binutils and gcc.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ >

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, H.J. Lu wrote:
> There are known bugs in binutils 2.9.1 on Solaris/Sparc. Quite a few
> Solaris/Sparc bugs have been fixed in binutils in cvs.

Thanks, HJ! I haved installed the patch below; it would be great if
someone would drop us a note once binutils have fixed these bugs in
an "official" release.

Gerald

Index: specific.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /egcs/carton/cvsfiles/wwwdocs/htdocs/install/specific.html,v
retrieving revision 1.45
diff -r1.45 specific.html
26a27
>   <li><a href="#sparc-sun-solaris*">sparc-sun-solaris*</a></li>
444a446,452
> <h3><a name="sparc-sun-solaris*">sparc-sun-solaris*</a></h3>
> 
> <p>binutils 2.9.1 has known bugs on this platform. We recommend to use the
> vendor tools (Sun as, Sun ld) until these have been fixed.</p>
> 
> 
> <hr>
501c509
< <p><i>Last modified on August 27, 1999.</i></p>
---
> <p><i>Last modified on August 30, 1999.</i></p>

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Nick Ing-Simmons]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>
>>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?
>
>I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
>that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.

It has been a "known problem" for years. The _original_ problem 
was GNU ld not honouring LD_RUN_PATH nor -R or equivalent. 
IIRC the exact problem has varied over the years.

There was a version around binutils-2.8.? when it did work, but it was too 
hard for us to explain to the clueless that they needed to install 
new binutils and possibly re-build gcc. (Lots of comparitively clueless
want to build and use perl.)

Now that GNU ld actually gains something (at least for C++) it is 
worth taking the time to figure it out.

>If people
>think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and put together a
>fuller problem report.  

Copy to perl5-porters@perl.org too - at very least Configure will 
probably need tweaks to command line stuff.

>Perl makes extensive use of dynamically loaded
>modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that when all of Perl was
>linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic modules that it had just
>built.
-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Nick Ing-Simmons]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>
>>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?
>
>I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
>that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.

It has been a "known problem" for years. The _original_ problem 
was GNU ld not honouring LD_RUN_PATH nor -R or equivalent. 
IIRC the exact problem has varied over the years.

There was a version around binutils-2.8.? when it did work, but it was too 
hard for us to explain to the clueless that they needed to install 
new binutils and possibly re-build gcc. (Lots of comparitively clueless
want to build and use perl.)

Now that GNU ld actually gains something (at least for C++) it is 
worth taking the time to figure it out.

>If people
>think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and put together a
>fuller problem report.  

Copy to perl5-porters@perl.org too - at very least Configure will 
probably need tweaks to command line stuff.

>Perl makes extensive use of dynamically loaded
>modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that when all of Perl was
>linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic modules that it had just
>built.
-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris

[Russ Allbery]

Nick Ing-Simmons <nik@tiuk.ti.com> writes:

> Copy to perl5-porters@perl.org too - at very least Configure will
> probably need tweaks to command line stuff.

Andy says that adding -E to the link options, which is in the _61 hints
file, makes Perl build correctly with GNU ld, and that he got a bunch of
positive confirmations back in April.  So it's possible that this is now
fixed.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ >

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[H.J. Lu]

> 
> Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> 
> >  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
> >     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?
> 
> I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
> that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.  If people
> think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and put together a
> fuller problem report.  Perl makes extensive use of dynamically loaded
> modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that when all of Perl was
> linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic modules that it had just
> built.
> 

There are known bugs in binutils 2.9.1 on Solaris/Sparc. Quite a few
Solaris/Sparc bugs have been fixed in binutils in cvs.


-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)

Re: Lost specific.html FAQ Entry

[Russ Allbery]

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:

> Index: specific.html

>> <h3><a name="elf_targets">all ELF targets (SVR4, Solaris, etc.)</a></h3>
>> 
>> <p>C++ support is significantly better on ELF targets if you use the GNU
>> linker; duplicate copies of inlines, vtables and template instantiations
>> will be discarded automatically.</p>

FYI, GNU ld from binutils 2.9.1 fails to successfully link Perl 5.005_03
on Solaris 2.6.  I haven't tried other versions of Solaris.  (Perl's hint
files try to keep you from using GNU ld on Solaris, saying that it won't
work correctly, and they are apparently entirely correct since overriding
that results in a non-functional Perl build.)

I was going to install gcc 2.95.1 here to use GNU ld on Solaris, given the
above note, but that was a sufficiently severe problem to cause me to drop
back to the vendor linker.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ >

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Nick Ing-Simmons]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>
>>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?
>
>I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
>that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.

It has been a "known problem" for years. The _original_ problem 
was GNU ld not honouring LD_RUN_PATH nor -R or equivalent. 
IIRC the exact problem has varied over the years.

There was a version around binutils-2.8.? when it did work, but it was too 
hard for us to explain to the clueless that they needed to install 
new binutils and possibly re-build gcc. (Lots of comparitively clueless
want to build and use perl.)

Now that GNU ld actually gains something (at least for C++) it is 
worth taking the time to figure it out.

>If people
>think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and put together a
>fuller problem report.  

Copy to perl5-porters@perl.org too - at very least Configure will 
probably need tweaks to command line stuff.

>Perl makes extensive use of dynamically loaded
>modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that when all of Perl was
>linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic modules that it had just
>built.
-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Russ Allbery]

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> On 28 Aug 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:

>>>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug
>>>     reports to the binutils developers resp. Sun?

>> I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
>> that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.

> It might be the case that there were a couple of bugs, so providing some
> new feedback that it still does not work could prove rather useful.

Oh, thanks for following up, I might have forgotten to mention.

Since the last message, I sent in some patches to Perl so that it would
correctly detect what ld gcc 2.95.1 was using, and ended up looking at the
hints file in the development version of Perl.  Turns out that the problem
these days with GNU ld isn't a bug but rather a difference in behavior
between Solaris ld and GNU ld in how they add symbols to the dynamic
symbol table.  Passing -E to GNU ld is rumored to allow Perl to build
correctly.

(It's getting to be a full-time job just updating one's mental map of what
software packages work where!)

I've since moved on to other projects and probably won't have the time to
go back and check with GNU ld in the near future, but based on that (and
the report of Solaris fixes in the CVS tree), I'll give GNU ld another
shot on Solaris the next time I rebuild binutils and gcc.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ >

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Russ Allbery]

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:

>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?

I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.  If people
think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and put together a
fuller problem report.  Perl makes extensive use of dynamically loaded
modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that when all of Perl was
linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic modules that it had just
built.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ >

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On 28 Aug 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?
> I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
> that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.

It might be the case that there were a couple of bugs, so providing some
new feedback that it still does not work could prove rather useful.

> If people think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and
> put together a fuller problem report.  Perl makes extensive use of
> dynamically loaded modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that
> when all of Perl was linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic
> modules that it had just built.

HJ Lu mentioned that the CVS versions of binutils have a couple of
SPARC-related issues fixed, perhaps you can give that a try?

(I don't have the URL, but I am sure someone on this list will provide
it.)

Thanks,
Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, H.J. Lu wrote:
> There are known bugs in binutils 2.9.1 on Solaris/Sparc. Quite a few
> Solaris/Sparc bugs have been fixed in binutils in cvs.

Thanks, HJ! I haved installed the patch below; it would be great if
someone would drop us a note once binutils have fixed these bugs in
an "official" release.

Gerald

Index: specific.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /egcs/carton/cvsfiles/wwwdocs/htdocs/install/specific.html,v
retrieving revision 1.45
diff -r1.45 specific.html
26a27
>   <li><a href="#sparc-sun-solaris*">sparc-sun-solaris*</a></li>
444a446,452
> <h3><a name="sparc-sun-solaris*">sparc-sun-solaris*</a></h3>
> 
> <p>binutils 2.9.1 has known bugs on this platform. We recommend to use the
> vendor tools (Sun as, Sun ld) until these have been fixed.</p>
> 
> 
> <hr>
501c509
< <p><i>Last modified on August 27, 1999.</i></p>
---
> <p><i>Last modified on August 30, 1999.</i></p>

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Nick Ing-Simmons]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>
>>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?
>
>I haven't, under the assumption that the hint file entry in Perl saying
>that GNU ld wouldn't work meant that this was a known problem.

It has been a "known problem" for years. The _original_ problem 
was GNU ld not honouring LD_RUN_PATH nor -R or equivalent. 
IIRC the exact problem has varied over the years.

There was a version around binutils-2.8.? when it did work, but it was too 
hard for us to explain to the clueless that they needed to install 
new binutils and possibly re-build gcc. (Lots of comparitively clueless
want to build and use perl.)

Now that GNU ld actually gains something (at least for C++) it is 
worth taking the time to figure it out.

>If people
>think it would help, I can try it again in a few days and put together a
>fuller problem report.  

Copy to perl5-porters@perl.org too - at very least Configure will 
probably need tweaks to command line stuff.

>Perl makes extensive use of dynamically loaded
>modules, and the symptom that I was seeing was that when all of Perl was
>linked with GNU ld, it couldn't load the dynamic modules that it had just
>built.
-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons

GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.htmlFAQEntry)

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On 27 Aug 1999, Russ Allbery wrote:
> FYI, GNU ld from binutils 2.9.1 fails to successfully link Perl 5.005_03
> on Solaris 2.6.  I haven't tried other versions of Solaris.  (Perl's hint
> files try to keep you from using GNU ld on Solaris, saying that it won't
> work correctly, and they are apparently entirely correct since overriding
> that results in a non-functional Perl build.)

Russ, thanks for your data points concerning Solaris!

Folks, we have had an incredible number of problem reports concerning
Solaris (mostly Solaris 7, binutils vs vendor tools, Sun make vs gmake...)
for 2.95.x.

Here is what we I think we should do about that:

 1. I have already performed a couple of updates to
    http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ but it seems we still need some
    further ones.

    Patches and hints are most welcome, as are updates to existing stuff.

 2. Shall we actually recommend against GNU ld for Solaris targets?

 3. Which versions of Sun make are sufficiently POSIX compliant for a
    srcdir != objdir bootstrap? Which are not?

 4. Perhaps there are GNU make specific features in some of our Makefiles?
    I vaguely remember some portability(?) patches several months ago,
    which were supposed to allow for srcdir != objdir builds with Sun make.

 5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
    to the binutils developers resp. Sun?

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris

[Russ Allbery]

Nick Ing-Simmons <nik@tiuk.ti.com> writes:

> Copy to perl5-porters@perl.org too - at very least Configure will
> probably need tweaks to command line stuff.

Andy says that adding -E to the link options, which is in the _61 hints
file, makes Perl build correctly with GNU ld, and that he got a bunch of
positive confirmations back in April.  So it's possible that this is now
fixed.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ >

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQ Entry)

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> Folks, we have had an incredible number of problem reports concerning
> Solaris (mostly Solaris 7, binutils vs vendor tools, Sun make vs gmake...)
> for 2.95.x.

>  4. Perhaps there are GNU make specific features in some of our Makefiles?
>     I vaguely remember some portability(?) patches several months ago,
>     which were supposed to allow for srcdir != objdir builds with Sun make.

Most of those patches made it into the source.

I made a (hopefully vague) promise at that time about making a patch
for the egcstensions page.  I've finally fulfilled that and made
one that people can apply to the gcc-2.95.1 release (only).
Please refer to
<URL: http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/gcc-patches/1999-08/msg00943.html >.

If nobody does it sooner (preferably), I'll send patches for
egcstensions.html and install/specific.html.

Note that it seems I failed to foil the archive engine into *not*
archiving the patch as a separate attachment, to avoid "patch"
complications.  So I also put it at
<URL: ftp://ftp.axis.se/pub/users/hp/gcc/gcc-2.95.1-sun-make-patch1.txt >.
If you prefer, feel free to put it at gcc.gnu.org.

brgds, H-P

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Phil Edwards]

>  1. I have already performed a couple of updates to
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ but it seems we still need some
>     further ones.
>
>     Patches and hints are most welcome, as are updates to existing stuff.

Possibly remind the reader/installer that when installing the 5.0 tools,
the "install all the patches" script on that CD (which the CD install
instructions assume that you run, of course) adds 107058-01 automatically.
I only /happened/ to catch the patch # scrolling by and /happened/ to
recall reading the specific.html blurb a month before.  I suspect some
people can get into problems this way.


>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?

I can submit bugs to Sun (we have a support contract and I have some spare
time), but I found out this week that the mailserver at work is on the ORBS
blacklist :-( so I've been holding off from joining the discussion until I
can actually send mail to these lists.  I will be more than willing to help
once I convince the mail admin...


Phil

Re: GCC 2.95.x: Major problems on Solaris (was: Lost specific.html FAQEntry)

[Phil Edwards]

>  1. I have already performed a couple of updates to
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ but it seems we still need some
>     further ones.
>
>     Patches and hints are most welcome, as are updates to existing stuff.

Possibly remind the reader/installer that when installing the 5.0 tools,
the "install all the patches" script on that CD (which the CD install
instructions assume that you run, of course) adds 107058-01 automatically.
I only /happened/ to catch the patch # scrolling by and /happened/ to
recall reading the specific.html blurb a month before.  I suspect some
people can get into problems this way.


>  5. Has someone experiencing these problems already submitted bug reports
>     to the binutils developers resp. Sun?

I can submit bugs to Sun (we have a support contract and I have some spare
time), but I found out this week that the mailserver at work is on the ORBS
blacklist :-( so I've been holding off from joining the discussion until I
can actually send mail to these lists.  I will be more than willing to help
once I convince the mail admin...


Phil