From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4898 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2011 17:38:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 4809 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Oct 2011 17:38:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from snape.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (HELO smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE) (129.70.160.84) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:38:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C32966; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:38:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (malfoy.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id UJvvHXFSF5cB; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:38:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [129.70.161.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1DA3965; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:38:01 +0100 (CET) Received: (from ro@localhost) by manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5/Submit) id p9VHc0Sj002527; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:38:00 +0100 (MET) From: Rainer Orth To: dclarke@blastwave.org Cc: Jonathan Wakely , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ? References: <45937.10.0.66.17.1320081754.squirrel@interact.purplecow.org> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:07:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <45937.10.0.66.17.1320081754.squirrel@interact.purplecow.org> (Dennis Clarke's message of "Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:22:34 -0400 (EDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00560.txt.bz2 Dennis Clarke writes: >>> I'm uncertain if Solaris 8/x86 still supports bare i386 machines, so it >>> might be better to keep the default of pentiumpro instead. >> >> Solaris 8 won't run on anything less than pentium, I recently >> convinced someone else to stop building GCC for i386 on Solaris: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-10/msg00005.html > > The Os is on Vintage support until March 2012. Also, I never had problems That's not the question (but one reason why Solaris 8 support will be removed after GCC 4.7). As Jonathan documented, you can't run S8 on a bare 80386, so there's no reason the default code generation to that CPU. > with it before. As for "completely redundant options" I have been building > gcc like this for a while. also never a problem before. > > This is a case of "magic configure incantation" required ? I certainly > hope not. Quite the contrary: leave out any configure option unless you absolutely need it because the defaults don't work, document why you need them, and re-check that info for every release. If you think configure should detect the condition on its own, file a bug report for that. These `I've used them for ever' options tend to do more harm than good, and confuse other users that check how your copy of gcc was built. This is especially bad for distributors like yourself, since the number of confused people is far larger than for some company-internal build ;-) Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University