https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- > --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2) > >> You should use cfarm216 instead: it's way faster than the others and >> runs Solaris 11.4, which is the only OS release supported on trunk. > I can't reach cfarm216, something with my ssh setup is too old. :( Strange: you're the first to report such an issue, and there are quite a number of users of the system. > Also, I just realized it can't be a plain NULL basic_block, because that'd > have > shown a SEGV in resource.c. All the more interest in a way to reproduce on > cfarm210 or cfarm211. There's no point in trying: trunk isn't supported on either Solaris 10 (cfarm210) or Solaris 11.3 (cfarm211). >> Ok. For this night's bootstrap, I'm using the tree at the revision >> before the culprit patch. I tried to revert just that one, but failed >> (conflicts and manual resolution failed compiling stage 1 libgcc). > There's two other commits after the culprit, that depends on it functionally > and contextually, so you have to revert those too. I suspected that much, but was in a bit of hurry to get the bootstraps going before I went to bed. > Either way, if you prefer to revert (the failing one and the two after that > one > obviously in opposite order, I'd be thankful. I'll likely land there myself > as > I currently have no way to reproduce the problem. I've no problem with just reverting locally for a day or two.
