From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17395 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 22:52:47 -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 17343 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 22:52:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e6.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.106) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 22:52:46 -0000 Received: from northrelay05.pok.ibm.com (northrelay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.23]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g9OMqjUF120378 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:52:45 -0400 Received: from dyn9-47-17-68.beaverton.ibm.com (dyn9-47-17-68.beaverton.ibm.com [9.47.17.68]) by northrelay05.pok.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id g9OMqhC4112676 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:52:44 -0400 Received: (from janis@localhost) by dyn9-47-17-68.beaverton.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA11358 for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:54:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 07:06:00 -0000 From: Janis Johnson To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Update: status of high-priority GNATS bugs Message-ID: <20021024155442.A11343@us.ibm.com> References: <200210232118.g9NLIBD28171@piper.synopsys.com> <20021024173445.L3451@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from prj@po.cwru.edu on Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 04:04:28PM -0400 X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01509.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 04:04:28PM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote: > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Can you check gcc-3_2-rhl8-branch too? > > Once I got that built, I got the same error again when using it to > build 2.95.3, unlike Janis - maybe my checkout is slightly different > from hers. I went back and tried it again with a gcc built from the gcc-3_2-rhl8-branch and this time the 2.95.3 bootstrap failed; I obviously did something wrong last time I tried it, like not really using the compiler I thought I was using. Then I tried with some other versions. GCC 3.1 fails in the same way, and GCC 3.0.4 succeeds. Paul, you said that you don't get the failure with the GCC 3.2 that is distributed with Red Hat 8.0, right? > Should this PR be made high priority? It seems to be a regression to > me - 2.95.3 can bootstrap 2.95.3, but 3.* can't. > paul It would seem that way to me. Janis