http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #23 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> 2012-05-08 20:48:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #22) > > --- Comment #21 from Hin-Tak Leung <htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net> > > 2012-05-08 14:15:52 UTC --- > > I think there was a misunderstanding: I specificially asked for the > smallest of the differing .o files *other than cc1*-checksum.o* since > the latter are expected to differ between stages. But for the moment, I > think we can do with cc1-checksum.o alone. Okay, sorry about that. > > There are two curious things: > > 1. why does the 2nd stage drops to only about 600 byte. (I assume 20-30k is > > normal). > > That's certainly completely unexpected. I'd ask you to rebuild > cc1-checksum.o for stage2 and stage3 (move the .o's aside, run make -n > cc1-checksum.o, then manually add -v -save-temps to the compilation > line. Then attach a tarball with the .c and output files and the gcc -v > output to see if there are any obvious diffences between the compilations. I'll get round to it when I find some time to do so, soon. > > 2. I did have a success with 4.6.1 (and I believe with both make/make > > bootstrap4 or 4-lean) a while ago, therefore I closed the bug. I did not > > Please always try this with a plain make/make bootstrap. I don't > currently want to debug issues which might be caused by non-default > targets. I don't see why they should be, but please let us stay with > the basics. Out of the three attachments, one is with plain make, the other two, one with bootstrap4 and bootstrap4-lean. (I think I tried them in the order of 4-lean, 4, plain - so you could see which is which from the time stamp). I know what you are saying, that's why I tried it simplier and simpler :-(. > > install 4.6.1 at the time but stayed at 4.3.3 (mostly to test and verify the > > other issues), but now I cannot build 4.6.1 correctly again. The system has > > not > > been changed much since then, the only changes I can think of which is > > relevant > > is that I installed updated versions of the gcc dependencies > > (mpfr-3.1.0,mpc-0.9,gmp-5.0.5) > > from the most updated versions the last time I looked at gcc. > > This is certainly a problem: the installation guide states > > Several support libraries are necessary to build GCC, some are required, > others optional. While any sufficiently new version of required tools > usually work, library requirements are generally stricter. Newer > versions may work in some cases, but it's safer to use the exact > versions documented. We appreciate bug reports about problems with newer > versions, though. > > The sentence about newer versions is there for a reason. In fact, on > Tru64 UNIX the situation is even worse: gmp 4.3.2 make check fails for > me, so I'm currently staying with gmp 4.2.1, mpfr 2.3.2, and mpc 0.8. > > Before using *any* version of gmp/mpfr/mpc with gcc (or for any other > purpose), make sure that they pass make check, as prominently stated in > e.g. the gmp announcements. > > Rainer Argh :-(. I did run make check on one of them (gmp?) because it says so at the end of make or 'make install', and it finished okay. I can certainly go back - if it is worthwhile. I'll try to re-do the checksum object files first.
