From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28579 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2005 00:30:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28549 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2005 00:30:51 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050715003051.28548.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" To: java-prs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050222215734.20155.gerald@pfeifer.com> References: <20050222215734.20155.gerald@pfeifer.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/20155] [4.0 Regression] libgcj build fails with "execvp: /bin/sh: Argument list too long" X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-q3/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-15 00:30 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] libgcj build fails with "execvp: /bin/sh: Argument list too long" bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-14 08:55 ------- > Adding Mark so that he can judge the opportunity of a backport. > > Removing bug 21624 dependency, because it is indeed fixed on mainline. If bug > 21624 were fixed the command line could be even shorter, but the current > situation on mainline is enough. I think it would be good to backport this patch, as bootstrap breakage is obviously severe. However, I wouldn't want to force the Java people to do something they don't think is safe. As long as the Java people are comfortable with the backport, it's fine by me. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20155