From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21547 invoked by alias); 23 Sep 2004 18:12:32 -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 21532 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2004 18:12:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Sep 2004 18:12:31 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDA1F2A26; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 03515-01-7; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [205.232.38.124] (potomac.gnat.com [205.232.38.124]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1546BF2A19; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:12:30 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20040922155147.GA12940@lucon.org> References: <20040922100014.GA6215@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20040922155147.GA12940@lucon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2187C89A-0D8C-11D9-9684-000A959A128E@gnat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Zdenek Dvorak , gcc mailing list From: Geert Bosch Subject: Re: Build problem on ia64 (reverting patch on 3.4 branch) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:04:00 -0000 To: Mark Mitchell , H.J.Lu X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01351.txt.bz2 On Sep 22, 2004, at 11:51, H. J. Lu wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17464 Apparently, a similar failure occurs with Ada (make gnatlib_and_tools) on the GCC 3.4 branch. In my opinion a patch that: 1) requires updating the system linker, and 2) has such a high potential for bootstrap/build problems should not go on a stable branch like the gcc-3_4-branch. If we have so many problems building our own tools, likely people will run in related issues on their own projects to. This is not a safe patch! As far as I understand the new ABI, there should still be backward compatibility, so there would be no pressing need for gcc-3_4 to implement this new ABI. Because of the above concerns I'd like to request that this patch be reverted on the 3.4 branch. -Geert