From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 382 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2009 09:12:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 371 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Sep 2009 09:12:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f226.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f226.google.com) (209.85.219.226) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:12:36 +0000 Received: by ewy26 with SMTP id 26so1845023ewy.29 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 02:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.211.161.23 with SMTP id n23mr3198937ebo.52.1253351553764; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 02:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm1933701eyb.28.2009.09.19.02.12.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 02:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AB4A3D8.3020803@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:12:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Wildenhues , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: combined enable-build-with-cxx bootstrap comparison failure References: <20090919074924.GA11080@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20090919074924.GA11080@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2 Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Comparing stages 2 and 3 > Bootstrap comparison failure! > Now, what do I do to (help) debug this? Open a PR? Attach some of the > object files (which)? Well, ultimately, you could rebuild everything with --save-temps and take a look at the .s files to see whether the difference in the .o files originates there, or if it's purely a binutils problem - I'd imagine the former, and when you see what the differences are you'll know where to look next. > How do I know this is the same as (or different > from) ? That will probably not be apparent until both bugs are analyzed a bit more. cheers, DaveK