On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:16:23PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:44:38PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > >> <snip wonderful work>
> > > > This was built against ppl 0.10.2 and cloog 0.15.10.
> > >
> > > Have you tried a bootstrap with neither ppl nor cloog ? I have yet to see
> > > their value and I generally exclude them. This results ( thus far ) in
> > > nice clean bootstrap builds.
> > >
> >
> > Dennis,
> > Considering that distros like Fedora ship their gcc's with graphite
> > support built-in, allowing graphite to regress like this between gcc
> > maintenance releases doesn't seem like a very good idea.
>
> The SUSE builds look fine. You have to investigate why it doesn't
> work for you, but it won't hold the 4.5.2 release. Are your
> ppl and cloog testsuite runs clean? Did you by chance build them
> with a different GCC release (and thus libstdc++)?
Richard,
I see the problem now and it confirms my fears about the loose version
control on gcc vs ppl vs cloog. I had built a cloog deb package against
a ppl2 0.11 package but forgot that and reinstalled the ppl 0.10.2 package.
This resulted in a build of gcc with...
[MacPro:gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0/4.5.2] howarth% otool -L cc1
cc1:
/sw/lib/libintl.8.dylib (compatibility version 9.0.0, current version
9.2.0)
/sw/lib/libiconv.2.dylib (compatibility version 7.0.0, current version
7.0.0)
/sw/lib/libcloog.0.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version
1.0.0)
/sw/lib/libppl_c.2.dylib (compatibility version 4.0.0, current version
4.0.0)
/sw/lib/libppl.7.dylib (compatibility version 9.0.0, current version
9.0.0)
/sw/lib/libgmpxx.4.dylib (compatibility version 6.0.0, current version
6.2.0)
/sw/lib/libmpc.2.dylib (compatibility version 3.0.0, current version
3.0.0)
/sw/lib/libmpfr.1.dylib (compatibility version 4.0.0, current version
4.2.0)
/sw/lib/libgmp.3.dylib (compatibility version 9.0.0, current version
9.2.0)
/usr/lib/libz.1.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version
1.2.3)
/usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version
625.0.0)
/sw/lib/gcc4.5/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0,
current version 1.0.0)
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current
version 125.2.1)
[MacPro:gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0/4.5.2] howarth% otool -L
/sw/lib/libcloog.0.dylib
/sw/lib/libcloog.0.dylib:
/sw/lib/libcloog.0.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version
1.0.0)
/sw/lib/libgmp.3.dylib (compatibility version 9.0.0, current version
9.2.0)
/sw/lib/libppl_c.4.dylib (compatibility version 5.0.0, current version
5.0.0)
/sw/lib/libppl.9.dylib (compatibility version 10.0.0, current version
10.0.0)
/sw/lib/libgmpxx.4.dylib (compatibility version 6.0.0, current version
6.2.0)
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current
version 125.2.1)
I believe in the past I may have tested FSF gcc built against ppl 0.11 vs a
cloog built
against ppl 0.10.2 and that worked. Apparently it is the inverse that breaks
graphite
(ie FSF built against ppl 0.10.2 vs a cloog built against ppl 0.11).
Jack
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
> > Jack
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dennis Clarke
> > > dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris
> > > dcla...@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de>
> Novell / SUSE Labs
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus
> Rex
