From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5502 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2004 14:18:04 -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 5494 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2004 14:18:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2004 14:18:03 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AfgOz-0008Rv-SF for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:17:17 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AfhLu-0003mz-DC for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:18:41 -0500 Received: from [199.232.41.8] (helo=mx20.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AfhLu-0003mr-2S for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:18:10 -0500 Received: from [66.187.237.31] (helo=mx2.redhat.com) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Afbd3-0007wE-RV for gcc@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:11:30 -0500 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0B8o8A20842; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:50:08 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0B9BSM09849; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:11:28 -0500 Received: from louie.sfbay.redhat.com (louie.sfbay.redhat.com [192.168.28.4]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0B9BRO04887; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:11:27 -0800 Received: (rth@localhost) by louie.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.6.4) id i0B9BM907957; Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:11:22 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: louie.sfbay.redhat.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:18:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Bernardo Innocenti Cc: Richard Zidlicky , gcc@gnu.org Subject: Re: m68k bootstrapping broken Message-ID: <20040111011122.A7949@redhat.com> References: <20040107182419.GA2906@linux-m68k.org> <3FFC71BA.2060105@develer.com> <20040108212228.GA5135@linux-m68k.org> <3FFDD287.5090504@develer.com> <20040109003553.GA8001@linux-m68k.org> <3FFE1E6A.8030304@develer.com> <20040109214753.GA6321@linux-m68k.org> <400069E6.5080301@develer.com> <20040110173359.A3722@redhat.com> <4000EE16.9020907@develer.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <4000EE16.9020907@develer.com>; from bernie@develer.com on Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:32:54AM +0100 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_MUTT,X_AUTH_WARNING version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00644.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:32:54AM +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote: > Just an idea: m68k is the only cc0 target capable of an > hosted bootstrap. Is it possible that middle-end changes > have subtly broken cc0 targets without anyone noticing > except on the m68k? Possible, yes. It wouldn't be my first guess though. r~