https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #268 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Larkin Nickle from comment #262)
> Created attachment 51182 [details]
> GCC 11.1 patch to net dwarf2 debugging symbols
>
> Rebuilding with this patch. Should hopefully net me actual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #267 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Larkin Nickle from comment #266)
> I'll try that 7.9.1 as a last resort; I noticed that 7.3.1 was able to read
> dwarf4 symbols from a previous 4.9.2 build I did so I'm testing building
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #265 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Larkin Nickle from comment #264)
> Oh, and I should mention this is what I get with 7.3.1 or 7.5.1:
>
> Reading symbols from
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #253 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #245)
> (In reply to John Buddery from comment #238)
> > Was your 11.1 build successful ?
>
> Our rebuild of 11.1.0 completed successfully. I haven't tested
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #252 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Larkin Nickle from comment #249)
> Then, if libcpp's Makefile is patched so that charset.c is built with -O1, I
> eventually run into other errors:
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #248 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #247)
> For clarification, I assume this is using the HP aCC compiler for binutils
> etc., rather than the bundled /usr/ccs/bin cc ?
Correct.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #246 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 51163
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51163=edit
Build script and patches
Build script for zlib, gmp, mpfr, mpc, binutils 2.25.1, 2.30, 2.32, and GCC
4.4.6,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #245 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #238)
> Was your 11.1 build successful ?
Our rebuild of 11.1.0 completed successfully. I haven't tested it though. I am
going to try earlier GCC releases and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #243 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #238)
> It seems binutils 2.32 and earlier works fine in 32 bit mode, but 2.33.1 and
> later require a 64 bit build for 64 bit objects to work reliably.
I can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #241 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #240)
> One question about PR66319 - it's marked as resolved, so is this committed
> as a patch in the trunk ?
It's resolved for HP-UX/PA but my HP-UX/IA patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #239 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #238)
> Thanks, I'll give it a go.
>
> It seems binutils 2.32 and earlier works fine in 32 bit mode, but 2.33.1 and
> later require a 64 bit build for 64 bit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #237 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #228)
> gcov-tool.c avoids build errors from ftwbuf differences on HP, apply if you
> hit errors but may need tidying up.
Instead of this patch, try the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #236 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #235)
> Interesting - that's with a 32 bit gas?
$ file bin/gcc111/ia64-hp-hpux11.31/bin/as
bin/gcc111/ia64-hp-hpux11.31/bin/as:ELF-32 executable object file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #234 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #233)
> One additional note - when building the patched binutils 2.36, it must be
> built as 64 bit executables.
>
> It seems that a 32 bit gas does not produce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #231 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John Buddery from comment #228)
> These patches are for 11.1.0, but should work on earlier versions too. With
> this I have a working gcc which I've tested on several large projects.
You
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #150 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Peter Bisroev from comment #149)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #148)
> > (In reply to The Written Word from comment #144)
> > > We have a build running that seems to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #148 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #144)
> We have a build running that seems to be going well. We are using gcc-4.9.4
> to build 8.3.0. I will attach the current patch set we are building
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #146 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #142)
> (In reply to Peter Bisroev from comment #133)
> > The tests are from are binutils-2.32.
> >
> > - gas.log
> > FAIL: .file file names
> > FAIL: .file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
The Written Word changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #46623|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #144 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Peter Bisroev from comment #135)
> I just had a chance to do some testing tonight. So attempting to bootstrap
> 8.3.0 in stock configuration gives PCREL21B style errors in stage1 as have
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #143 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Peter Bisroev from comment #131)
> ...
>
> After a bit of digging around looks
> like my ar and ranlib binaries from binutils are not working properly. For
> example:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #142 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Peter Bisroev from comment #133)
> The tests are from are binutils-2.32.
>
> - gas.log
> FAIL: .file file names
> FAIL: .file file names ordering
> FAIL: .equ redefinitions (ELF)
> FAIL:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #99 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to C. Heide from comment #98)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #97)
> > (In reply to C. Heide from comment #73)
> > > With that change, and some other cajoling (the previously
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #97 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to C. Heide from comment #73)
> With that change, and some other cajoling (the previously mentioned
> duplicate symbols and operand64 problem, and -O1 to work around the ICE), I
> can now get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #96 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #91)
> On 2019-07-23 5:53 p.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> > In file included from
> > /opt/build/china/gcc-8.3.0/.obj/ia
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #95 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #92)
> On 2019-07-23 5:48 p.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> > Yeah, we had PR64919 applied and backed out only th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #94 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 46623
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46623=edit
gcc-8.3.0 patches
Patches currently being used to build gcc-8.3.0 on HP-UX/IA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #88 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #78)
> (In reply to dave.anglin from comment #77)
> >
> > I think you need to define _XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED. See for example
> > config/pa/pa-hpux11.h.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #87 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to EML from comment #80)
> During stage0 - MPFR will ICE in GCC4.9.3 due to TLS. You need to go into
> the MPFR directory and re-run the same configure line from config.log, but
> add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #86 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to C. Heide from comment #79)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #75)
> >
> > I think a local patch might be doing this. Rebuild without it.
>
> I did have some other patches
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #78 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #77)
>
> I think you need to define _XOPEN_SOURCE_EXTENDED. See for example
> config/pa/pa-hpux11.h.
Yep. I forgot about PR66319.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #76 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #75)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #74)
> >
> > I'm getting further in the build on HP-UX 11.31/IA but when linking
> > libstdc++.la, I get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #75 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #74)
> (In reply to C. Heide from comment #73)
> > With that change, and some other cajoling (the previously mentioned
> > duplicate symbols and operand64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #74 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to C. Heide from comment #73)
> With that change, and some other cajoling (the previously mentioned
> duplicate symbols and operand64 problem, and -O1 to work around the ICE), I
> can now get
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #54 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to EML from comment #52)
> objdump -h -s foo
> Contents of section .rodata:
> 40007f8 48656c6c 6f732057 6f726c64 00Hellos World.
>
>
> So gcc 4.9.x also puts the string into
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #53 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to EML from comment #52)
> Note, regardless of reverting the gprel patch, GCC 8 puts the data in
> .rodata.
>
> However, doesn't gcc 4.9.x do the same thing, it just moves it to GOT with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #51 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #50)
> On 2019-07-05 4:28 p.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> > I am uploading hello.c, hello.s, and hello.c.313r.dfinish.
> I'm still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #49 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 46565
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46565=edit
hello.c compiled with -da
/opt/build/china/gcc-8.3.0/.obj-/./gcc/xgcc
-B/opt/build/china/gcc-8.3.0/.obj-/./gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #48 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 46564
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46564=edit
hello.s assembly output of hello.c
/opt/build/china/gcc-8.3.0/.obj-/./gcc/xgcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #47 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 46563
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46563=edit
Hello.c test program
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #46 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #45)
>
> You could dump the RTL by adding "-da" to the compile options. Then, you
> could upload the "final" file.
I am uploading hello.c, hello.s, and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #43 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #42)
> On 2019-07-05 12:57 a.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> > I can now duplicate what you're seeing:
> > $ diff -u gcc-4.9.4/he
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #41 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #39)
> (In reply to EML from comment #25)
> > I have applied the patch and tried your other suggestions, still the stage1
> > compiler has the same problems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #40 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 46560
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46560=edit
Revert PR60465
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #39 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to EML from comment #25)
> I have applied the patch and tried your other suggestions, still the stage1
> compiler has the same problems generating executables.
>
> In analyzing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #38 from The Written Word
---
I rebuilt 8.3.0 with minimal patches and am seeing the same failure as before.
From /ia64-hp-hpux11.31/libstdc++-v3/config.log:
configure:7964: checking for ANSI C header files
configure:7984:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #30 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #29)
> On 2019-07-03 7:20 p.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> > configure:8057: /opt/build/china/gcc-8.3.0/.obj/./gcc/xgcc
> > -B/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #28 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to EML from comment #17)
> Note that in certain cases, the MPFR library won't build depending on the
> CFLAGS used (in particular the default -g -O2), this is due to problems with
> thread
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #27 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #26)
> On 2019-07-03 6:06 p.m., elowe at elowe dot com wrote:
> > If I replace those 3 lines and run the assembler+linker by hand - the
> > non-working foo.s will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #24 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to EML from comment #22)
> Thanks for the hints and options
>
> on IA64, I used the GNU AS (2.32), but the HP LD (ld: 92453-07 linker ld HP
> Itanium(R) B.12.65 IPF/IPF)
Do you have this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #15 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #12)
> It might help to compile stage1 with -O2 or -Os.
How does one do this? After ./configure, "gmake CFLAGS=-Os"? BOOT_CFLAGS
applies to stage2/3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #13 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #12)
> It might help to compile stage1 with -O2 or -Os. This might reduce offset
> and get a newer version
> of gcc to build. gcc-8.3.0 seems to have built okay
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #14 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #10)
> I don't know the status of Jim Wilson who is listed as ia64 maintainer.
We reached out to Jim Wilson in 2016 and got a reply back. He no longer has
access
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #11 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #10)
> On 2019-05-07 5:29 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > Dave, are you aware of anybody testing ia64-hpux?
> > Should it be deprecated if nobody is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #20 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44536
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44536=edit
stdlib.h long_double patch for HP-UX 11.31/PA
Tested against 7.3.0 and 8.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #19 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #18)
> On 2018-08-12 8:10 AM, bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> > This is the patch I came up with. What do you think?
>
> Did you c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #17 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #16)
> Created attachment 44529 [details]
> stdlib.h long_double patch
This is the patch I came up with. What do you think?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #16 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44529
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44529=edit
stdlib.h long_double patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #14 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #13)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #10)
> > (In reply to John David Anglin from comment #9)
> > > It would help to see the uses of long_double
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #13 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #10)
> (In reply to John David Anglin from comment #9)
> > It would help to see the uses of long_double in stdlib.h.
>
> /usr/include/stdlib.h has:
>
> #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #12 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #11)
> Created attachment 44528 [details]
> stdlib.h long_double patch
My first attempt but it didn't work.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #11 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44528
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44528=edit
stdlib.h long_double patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #10 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to John David Anglin from comment #9)
> It would help to see the uses of long_double in stdlib.h.
/usr/include/stdlib.h has:
# ifndef _LONG_DOUBLE
#define _LONG_DOUBLE
# if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #17 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44456
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44456=edit
gcc/config/rs6000/aix53.h patch for gcc-5.5.0
Needed this patch to build 5.5.0 successfully on AIX 5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #16 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44455
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44455=edit
gcc/config/rs6000/aix53.h for gcc-6.4.0
Needed this patch to build 6.4.0 successfully on AIX 5.3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #15 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 3
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3=edit
gcc/config/rs6000/aix53.h patch
Similar to r227907 but for AIX 5.3 Have used this to successfully build
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #7 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #6)
> This looks like a target issue. Have you ever build gcc on HP-UX 11.31/PA?
Definitely a target issue. With some patches I can build gcc 4.x on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #5 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #4)
> On HP-UX 11.23/PA, this isn't an issue because of the following in
> fixincludes/inclhack.def:
> /*
> * HP-UX long_double
> */
> fix = {
> hackname
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
The Written Word changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|7.2.0 |8.1.0
--- Comment #4 from The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #3 from The Written Word
---
6.4.0 and 7.3.0 exhibit the same error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
The Written Word changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #2 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #1)
> I get a similar error with 8.1.0.
And with 5.5.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86630
--- Comment #3 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> GCC assumes that inttypes.h contains PRIx64
It does. gcc/system.h has:
/* Define this so that inttypes.h defines the PRI?64 macros even
when compiling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #14 from The Written Word
---
Adding -bnoquiet to the linker command-line I get:
(ld): halt 4
(ld): setopt r/o->w
(ld): setopt nortl
(ld): setopt nortllib
(ld): setopt symbolic:-1
(ld): setfflag 4
(ld): savename ./shr.o
(ld):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86559
--- Comment #4 from The Written Word
---
gcc-7.3.0 exhibits the same problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #13 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> > Created attachment 44406 [details]
> > Undefine macros for long double math functions
> >
> > Does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86630
--- Comment #1 from The Written Word
---
AIX 6.1 exhibits a similar error.
: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I tried building gcc-5.5.0 on AIX 5.2 and 5.3 as follows:
$ gtar Jxf gcc-5.5.0.tar.xz
$ cd gcc-5.5.0
$ mkdir .obj
$ cd .obj
$ PATH=/opt/TWWfsw/gcc49/bin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
--- Comment #49 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #48)
> I suggest filing a new bug report with details of what/how does not compile
> anymore. Perhaps it's easy to tweak.
Ok.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60465
The Written Word changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla-gcc@thewrittenword
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #37 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #36)
> I can build 4.9.3 on HP-UX 11.31/IA but not 4.9.4. So, looks like something
> changed to break the build in 4.9.4.
I reverted the patch for PR60465 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #36 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #35)
> I am trying to build 4.9.4 with a patched 4.7.4 and am running into the
> following failure:
> /opt/build/china/gcc-4.9.4/.obj/./gcc/xgcc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64919
--- Comment #35 from The Written Word
---
I am trying to build 4.9.4 with a patched 4.7.4 and am running into the
following failure:
/opt/build/china/gcc-4.9.4/.obj/./gcc/xgcc
-B/opt/build/china/gcc-4.9.4/.obj/./gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86599
--- Comment #1 from The Written Word
---
I get a similar error with 8.1.0.
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I tried building gcc-7.2.0 on HP-UX 11.31/PA as follows:
$ gtar Jxf gcc-7.2.0.tar.xz
$ cd gcc-7.2.0
$ mkdir .obj
$ cd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #11 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> As I suspected, something is doing:
>
> #define fabsl(X) fabs((double) (X))
> #define acosl(X) acos((double) (X))
> etc.
>
> This would probably be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #9 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #7)
> I use GCC 4.6 to bootstrap. It appears that the error is caused by the
> "system" bootstrap compiler, which I think is GCC 4.4 in your case. It is
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #8 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #6)
> gcc-5.5.0 and 7.2.0 errored out in the same way but I am able to build
> gcc-8.1.0 successfully. gcc-6.4.0 seems to have built insn-output.c
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #6 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #5)
> GCC 4.9 is quite old now and out of service. If there is a bug in GCC 4.9,
> it will not be fixed because there are no bug fix releases planned.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #10 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> Created attachment 44406 [details]
> Undefine macros for long double math functions
>
> Does this fix the build?
I am trying a similar patch. I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #9 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> As I suspected, something is doing:
>
> #define fabsl(X) fabs((double) (X))
> #define acosl(X) acos((double) (X))
> etc.
/usr/include/math.h on this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68663
--- Comment #4 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to The Written Word from comment #3)
> (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #2)
> > Group Bull, Perzl, and I have been able to build it. Are you using an up to
> > date AIX Assembler?
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86559
--- Comment #3 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to The Written Word from comment #1)
> > Might be a duplicate of PR64081.
>
> Wrong bug number?
I was looking at bug 64081 comment 31.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #5 from The Written Word
---
Created attachment 44405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44405=edit
Preprocessed source for math_stubs_long_double.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #2 from The Written Word
---
gcc-6.4.0 on AIX 5.3 exhibits a similar failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86559
--- Comment #1 from The Written Word
---
Might be a duplicate of PR64081.
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I tried building gcc-7.2.0 on AIX 5.3 as follows:
$ gtar Jxf gcc-7.2.0.tar.xz
$ cd gcc-7.2.0
$ mkdir .obj
$ cd .obj
$ PATH=/opt/TWWfsw/gcc47/bin:$PATH LDR_CNTRL=MAXDATA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86553
--- Comment #1 from The Written Word
---
I get a similar failure on AIX 5.2 with gcc-7.2.0 and gcc-8.1.0.
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I tried building gcc-8.1.0 on AIX 5.3 as follows:
$ gtar Jxf gcc-8.1.0.tar.xz
$ cd gcc-8.1.0
$ mkdir .obj
$ cd .obj
$ PATH=/opt/TWWfsw/gcc47/bin:$PATH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82688
--- Comment #3 from The Written Word
---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> The search button is your friend.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 81926 ***
Oops, thanks.
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
