--- Comment #25 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-07-19 00:27
---
Subject: Re: All error messages produce segfault
On Jul 19, 2006, at 9:19 AM, lucier at math dot purdue dot edu wrote:
> I must be one hell of an atypical guy building 4.1.1, my bootstrap
> on x86-64
> RHE
On Jul 19, 2006, at 9:19 AM, lucier at math dot purdue dot edu wrote:
I must be one hell of an atypical guy building 4.1.1, my bootstrap
on x86-64
RHEL 4.0 didn't work (PR 28066),
Well PR 28066 is not a GCC bug but a bug in an older pre-release of
binutils.
-- Pinski
--- Comment #24 from lucier at math dot purdue dot edu 2006-07-19 00:19
---
Well, I just hit the same bug in 4.1.1, so it survived from 4.1.0.
I must be one hell of an atypical guy building 4.1.1, my bootstrap on x86-64
RHEL 4.0 didn't work (PR 28066), my 32-bit bootstrap on sparc-sun-
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23541
--- Comment #23 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 14:44
---
> My hope is that this PR will get more attention. We can't IMHO release 4.2
> with this problem still there, and it was filed in October.
Oh, and feel free to take a stab at it. :-) Part of the problem is tha
--- Comment #22 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 14:36
---
> Huh? The third comment in 26507 (by you I might add) agrees that PR 26507 and
> this one are the same problem. We should close one as a dup of the other.
I precisely chose not to close either because of thei
--- Comment #21 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 14:29 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> It's the wrong PR, this one is for pre-4.2, the 3 workarounds work.
> The problem is minor for pre-4.2. The blocker PR for 4.2 is PR other/26507.
Huh? The third comment in 26507 (by you
--- Comment #20 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 14:09
---
> Of the 3 workarounds in comment #17, bootstrap with Sun cc doesn't work
> because of PR 18058 (although there is a patch posted for that PR). Also
> bootstrap with GCC 2.x or 3.x isn't quite right since I tri
--- Comment #19 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 13:51 ---
Of the 3 workarounds in comment #17, bootstrap with Sun cc doesn't work because
of PR 18058 (although there is a patch posted for that PR). Also bootstrap
with GCC 2.x or 3.x isn't quite right since I tried 3.4.x and
--- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-08 18:10
---
Created an attachment (id=10993)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10993&action=view)
Naive fix.
It tweaks 4 (really 3) C source files and is sufficient to overcome the
problem.
But it's probab
--- Comment #17 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-09 08:57
---
> Bootstrapping with 'gcc -std=c89' hasn't worked.
Here are 3 workarounds:
- configure with --disable-nls,
- bootstrap with Sun cc,
- bootstrap with GCC 2.x or GCC 3.x.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Comment #16 from alex at milivojevic dot org 2006-01-04 19:55 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Both in dgettext.c and dngettext.c at a minimum as far as I can see. Another
> possible path is to bootstrap the compiler with Sun cc or with gcc -std=c89.
Bootstrapping with 'gcc -std=c89
--- Comment #15 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 16:01
---
> Hmmm... If in dgettext.c I simply change the order the files are included,
> would that solve the problem? Or the fix is going to be more complex?
Both in dgettext.c and dngettext.c at a minimum as far as I
--- Comment #14 from alex at milivojevic dot org 2006-01-04 15:03 ---
Benjamin:
You are not alone. I hit that bug too ;-)
Andrew:
I can reproduce the bug on my system. I haven't done anything fancy. And I
made sure only standard Solaris header files/libraries were visible while
boots
--- Comment #13 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 09:56
---
OK, all this mess comes from the following lines in /usr/include/locale.h:
#if (__STDC__ - 0 == 0 && \
!defined(_XOPEN_SOURCE) && !defined(_POSIX_C_SOURCE)) || \
defined(__EXTENSIONS__)
#include
--- Comment #12 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 09:16
---
*** Bug 25200 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-04 09:15
---
*** Bug 25602 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-15 16:40
---
Investigating.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-15 16:39
---
*** Bug 24039 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-30
09:38 ---
Could you post the exact configure line and command line you used to build the
compiler? And the output of 'gcc -v' for the bootstrap compiler?
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From fgccbz0 at greynode dot net 2005-08-29 13:36
---
> It sounds like you have a mismatching header installed and nothing more.
Such a difference is certainly possible - thank's for the e-mail address. That
ought to provide the hook I need to continue.
--
h
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-26
17:20 ---
Eric Botcazou is sparc maintainer:
sparc port Eric Botcazou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It sounds like you have a mismatching header installed and nothing more.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Additional Comments From fgccbz0 at greynode dot net 2005-08-25 21:46
---
I'm not really sure how to proceed here. I've told you a symptom, a diagnosis
describing a probable flaw in the code, and possible solution. You've pointed me
at some logs from a person I don't know with an inv
--- Additional Comments From fgccbz0 at greynode dot net 2005-08-25 14:09
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 4.1.0 works just fine:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-08/msg00241.html
> So does 4.0.2:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-08/msg00182.html
Thanks.
> So it
--- Additional Comments From fgccbz0 at greynode dot net 2005-08-25 13:30
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This sounds like a bug in your configuration as nobody else I know of has had
this problem.
Are you sure these unnamed other people are using not just 64-bit targeted but
64-bit host
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-25
13:35 ---
4.1.0 works just fine:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-08/msg00241.html
So does 4.0.2:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-08/msg00182.html
So it has to be your configuration is different
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-24
11:37 ---
This sounds like a bug in your configuration as nobody else I know of has had
this problem.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
27 matches
Mail list logo
