https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #53 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sun May 1 10:49:25 2016
New Revision: 235692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235692&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/70704
* configure.ac (--enable-stage1-checki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #51 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 26 06:10:43 2016
New Revision: 235430
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235430&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/70704
* configure.ac (--enable-stage1-checki
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #50 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Apr 26 06:08:20 2016
New Revision: 235429
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235429&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/70704
* pt.c (build_non_dependent_expr): Tem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #49 from David Edelsohn ---
Can we add some testcases to ensure that -fchecking and similar flags don't
accidentally affect code generation due to future changes?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #48 from David Edelsohn ---
Commenting out the fold_non_dependent_expr call seems to work for me using the
build method that regularly was failing before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #47
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #46 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, my current thinking is that this is related to make -jN bootstrap doing
stage1 checking by default.
Guess with --enable-stage1-checking=release it would bootstrap fine, but
haven't verified that.
But, wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #45 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't think M4 env var should make a difference in this case, in the release
tarballs the gengtype-lex.c file is already built (on x86_64-linux) and nothing
should be changing that.
That said, I've manage
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
Michael Haubenwallner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||michael.haubenwallner@ssi-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #43 from David Edelsohn ---
I tried RC2 and it again failed. I configured again with your configure
command and what appears to be your build command, and it succeeded.
One difference is my normal bootstrap script still use the cont
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #42 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even
PATH=/opt/freeware/bin/:$PATH /home/jakub/gcc-6.0.1-RC-20160415/configure
--disable-werror --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc --with-gmp=/opt/cfarm
--with-libiconv-prefix=/opt/cfarm --disable-libstdc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #41 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #40)
> I see that you did not have /opt/freeware/bin in your path on AIX. How did
> it even build without GNU Make and other build requirements?
I've used gmake -j64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #40 from David Edelsohn ---
I see that you did not have /opt/freeware/bin in your path on AIX. How did it
even build without GNU Make and other build requirements?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #38)
> The gt* files don't differ.
>
> I normally use
>
> --disable-werror --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc --with-gmp=/opt/cfarm
> --with-libiconv-prefix=/opt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #38 from David Edelsohn ---
The gt* files don't differ.
I normally use
--disable-werror --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc --with-gmp=/opt/cfarm
--with-libiconv-prefix=/opt/cfarm --disable-libstdcxx-pch
--with-included-gettext --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Marek tried to reproduce this using the RC1 tarball, but it seems it went
through
comparison just fine; configure line has been:
/home/xxx/gcc-6.0.1-RC-20160415/configure --prefix=/home/xxx/rc
--enab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #36 from David Edelsohn ---
It definitely is Flex. gcc-6-branch r235040 and r235340 fail when built with
Flex 2.6.0. gcc-6.0.1-RC-20160415 fails using the supplied gengtype-lex.c
created with Flex 2.5.37.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #35 from David Edelsohn ---
Flex 2.6.0 works with --enable-checking=yes, but may not work with
--enable-checking=release. I believe that Flex may be the culprit. If the
current bootstrap confirms that, I am going to bootstrap with g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #34 from David Edelsohn ---
The tarball contains LAST_UPDATED, although different contents.
I previously copied gcc/REVISION from svn checkout to the RC (which is
referenced by Makefile). That showed no difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #33 from David Edelsohn ---
I'm completely confused as well. The bits seem to be identical. The only
other obvious difference is ordering of timestamps of the source files that
would cause Make to build files in a different order.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek ---
But if gengtype-lex.c is not it, what it is then? I can't see how the
generated man pages or *.html files or *.gmo or *.info files could affect it,
so is the pathname? If you check out r235040 into the sam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #31 from David Edelsohn ---
I will test, but Flex and gengtype-lex.c does not appear to be the issue. If
the change works, it will be coincidental.
I have built the RC with gengtype-lex.c removed so that it is regenerated with
the s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 38320
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38320&action=edit
2.5.37 -> 2.6
So, can you please verify that the RC1 tarball bootstraps if you apply the
attached patch (which
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #29 from David Edelsohn ---
Flex 2.6.0 works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #28 from David Edelsohn ---
I copied gcc/REVISION to the release candidate to remove one additional
difference and tried bootstrap, but it still failed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #27 from David Edelsohn ---
I performed a recursive diff of r235040 vs gcc-6.0.1-rc-20160415. Other than
.svn directories, the only differences are:
Only in gcc6rc/INSTALL: binaries.html
Only in gcc6rc/INSTALL: build.html
Only in gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #26 from David Edelsohn ---
After some more tests, I don't believe that flex is the culprit. I removed
gengtype-lex.c from GCC-6.0.1-RC and allowed the flex to rebuild it, but the
build still failed with the miscompare.
The problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looking at the history of flex, flex 2.5.3 is something pre-1997, then there
used to be 2.5.4 and 2.5.4a, and at least RHL updated from the 2.5.4a to 2.5.33
early in 2007, so the question is if there has act
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #24 from David Edelsohn ---
Actually, I finally was able to convince Flex 2.6.0 to build. I'll try with
that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #23 from David Edelsohn ---
Older releases of Flex are no longer available as source code. Flex now is
distributed through sourceforge, not gnu.org. Newer releases of Flex don't
build on AIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So lots of macro/code formatting and other minor changes, function names
changed etc., but the actual table content looks the same to me. But the
amount of changes is huge.
Perhaps try some flex versions in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I see flex 2.6 has been released (already in November last year), does that
help?
I could do the final release and/or rc2 with flex 2.6 instead of flex 2.5.37...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #21 from David Edelsohn ---
The recent flex adds a number of its own C int type definitions and ranges.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #19 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 38311
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38311&action=edit
gengtype-lex.c generated on AIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #18 from David Edelsohn ---
Created attachment 38310
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38310&action=edit
gengtype-lex.c distributed in GCC-6.0.1-RC1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #17 from David Edelsohn ---
Yes, WS1 is Flex 2.5.37. I will upload both. There are many differences.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, what is the diff in between a working and non-working gengtype-lex.c ?
I don't have access right now to the WS I've built the RC1 on (travelling), but
guess it is 2.5.37.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #15 from David Edelsohn ---
gcc-6-20160410 snapshot tarball (without gengtype-lex.c) works.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #14 from David Edelsohn ---
The problem likely is due to gcc/gentype-lex.c distributed in the tarball. The
AIX systems currently use flex 2.5.3, which produces working gengtype-lex.c on
AIX.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #13 from David Edelsohn ---
A source tree checked out from r235040 (the same as the tarball) works. It
looks more likely that the problem is some difference between the repository
and the tarball.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #12 from David Edelsohn ---
Current trunk works. I am testing gcc-6-branch now. But the RC itself does
not work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #11 from Marek Polacek ---
I have tried bootstrap on AIX with
.../configure --prefix=`pwd` --enable-checking=release
--with-gmp=/opt/cfarm/gmp-latest/ --with-mpc=/opt/cfarm/mpc-latest/
--with-mpfr=/opt/cfarm/mpfr-latest/ && gmake -j16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn ---
This is starting to look like PR60984 all over again. Testing trunk with
--enable-checking=release succeeds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn ---
r224187 works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70704
--- Comment #8 from David Edelsohn ---
Development branch prior to debug-early merge works.
46 matches
Mail list logo
