686
GNU/Linux|SMP (non-64bit) platform fails
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: WISD00M at GMX dot NET
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29049
--- Comment #1 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-12 23:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=12238)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12238&action=view)
config.cache created by running ./configure w/o any flags
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29049
--- Comment #3 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-12 23:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=12239)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12239&action=view)
config.log as created by configure
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29049
--- Comment #4 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-12 23:54 ---
Created an attachment (id=12240)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12240&action=view)
config.status as created by configure
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29049
--- Comment #5 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-12 23:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=12241)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12241&action=view)
toplevel Makefile created by configure
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29049
--- Comment #6 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-12 23:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=12242)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12242&action=view)
Makefile from gcc sub folder as created by configure
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29049
--- Comment #7 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-12 23:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=12243)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12243&action=view)
complete log from running make using "-d" debug switch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29049
--- Comment #8 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-12 23:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=12244)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12244&action=view)
last hundred lines of the complete Makefile log w/ debug output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #9 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 00:09 ---
> I was able to compile 20060909 on i686-linux-gnu just fine.
so was I, but not on a SMP (multi-processor) machine
> How did you configure GCC?
as I mentioned in the original report, I didn't use any configure
--- Comment #10 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 00:12 ---
> > How did you configure GCC?
> as I mentioned in the original report, I didn't use any configure whatsoever
originally
Just for clarification: I missed to write "configure flags", of co
--- Comment #11 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 00:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=12245)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12245&action=view)
environment variables as requested
these are the environment variables that are set in bash for the ro
--- Comment #12 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 00:24 ---
> > I was able to compile 20060909 on i686-linux-gnu just fine.
> so was I, but not on a SMP (multi-processor) machine
Just to summarize my original and somewhat lengthy reply: I have come to the
assumption tha
--- Comment #14 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 00:30 ---
Sorry, I just realized that I somehow managed to forget to post the actual
error and warning messages:
/root/tmp/plain/./gcc/xgcc -B/root/tmp/plain/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #15 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 00:36 ---
> No it does not.
Well, as I said: it's just an assumption-for the lack of a better explanation
right now.
>Are you sure you don't have some bad hardware?
well, define "bad hardware"-the system
--- Comment #16 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 00:44 ---
Also, with regards to "bad hardware": this is a multiprocessor server system
that's in use every day, it's got numerous inbuilt hardware failure-detection
mechanisms, so as soon as there's a
--- Comment #17 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 00:51 ---
> No it does not. Are you sure you don't have some bad hardware?
Just to summarize everything again: the "hardware" problem you anticipate would
then vanish partially when providing the "-m32"
--- Comment #19 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 01:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=12246)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12246&action=view)
the complete configargs.h file from the build gcc sub directory
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #20 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 01:11 ---
I'm sorry, I obviously messed up the first translation unit that fails in my
original posting (the error that I posted was already a later error, when I had
adjusted the Makefile already). So, from a (FRESH) ta
--- Comment #21 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 01:16 ---
Just for your info, when I now (again) MANUALLY ADD "-m32" to the parameter
list, everything works again as expected:
Reading specs from ./specs
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.2-20060906
--- Comment #23 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 03:16 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> I only saw this with gcc plus the biarch patch.
what exactly is "this", could you be more specific?
did you see the VERY SAME type of error/warnings while trying to build?
and N
--- Comment #24 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 03:24 ---
weird enough, when configuring target/host/build all set to
"i586-pc-linux-gnu", the whole make process still cancels at the same point,
even though the 64 bit stuff should theoretically not even be touc
--- Comment #25 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 05:02 ---
Just for your info: I just tried to compile the two previous official releases
on the same machine to troubleshoot this issue further (using no configure/make
flags WHATSOEVER, building in a separate build directory in
--- Comment #27 from WISD00M at GMX dot NET 2006-09-13 06:19 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> # uname -a
as previously mentioned (comment #9), it's: "Linux syssiphus 2.6.17.4 #1 SMP
PREEMPT Mon Sep 11 14:42:28 CEST 2006 i686 unknown"
> # cat /proc/cpuinfo
processo
23 matches
Mail list logo
