https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87865
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org> ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>> > --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org> ---
>> > This is part of the dmd frontend which as no interaction with gcc. So
>> > gcc_unreachable() can't be used here.
>>
>> I see. However, if upstream dmc were built with similar warning options
>> than gcc, the problem would exist there as well.
>>
>> > Sounds like some independent compatibility layer is required here instead.
>>
>> That's certainly an option. Among others, what to do here depends on
>> how prevalent the problem is: if Solaris 10 is the only OS affected and
>> the other pre-Solaris 11.4 issues (especially PR d/87865) cannot be
>> resolved for the GCC 9 release, one might as well close the bug as
>> WONTFIX given Solaris 10 is obsoleted in GCC 9.
>
> This would even be automatically fixed in GCC 10, where I intend on swapping
> the frontend C++ sources with D, where assert() is a built-in contract and the
> false branch is treated as __noreturn__.
>
> But until then, this is a bootstrap problem if GCC 9 is to be used to build
> GCC
> 10 on Solaris.
Given that Solaris 10 support will be removed in GCC 10 and Solaris 11
has no problem here, I guess dealing with this isn't worth the trouble:
better concentrate on the bugs affecting Solaris 11 (11.4 first, than
11.3 if possible).
Rainer
