[Bug target/42753] _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler.

2010-01-16 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #11 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-16 14:27 --- (In reply to comment #10) Subject: Re: _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler. On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, david dot kirkby at onetel dot net wrote: Is this is trivial fix

[Bug c++/21057] iso C99 complex double: problems with g++

2010-01-16 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #3 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-16 14:29 --- (In reply to comment #2) Confirmed. However, this has really low priority: the C++ standard is not a superset of the C99 standard, so a number of things new to C99 are not part of C++, and this is one

[Bug target/42753] _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler.

2010-01-16 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #13 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-17 03:53 --- (In reply to comment #12) Subject: Re: _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler. On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, david dot kirkby at onetel dot net wrote: Do you know of anyone

[Bug c/42753] New: _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler.

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
Version: 4.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net GCC build triplet: Sun SPARC Enterprise T5240 Server running

[Bug c/42753] _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler.

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #1 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 09:18 --- Created an attachment (id=19604) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19604action=view) C source code that generates error -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42753

[Bug c/42753] _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler.

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #2 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 09:19 --- Created an attachment (id=19605) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19605action=view) Preprocessed header -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42753

[Bug c/42753] _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler.

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #3 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 09:27 --- I discovered the bug first on a Sun Blade 2000 running Solaris 10 while building the Sage maths software. http://www.sagemath.org/ A test case was created by Robert Bradshaw. The attached header file

[Bug bootstrap/36481] gcc fails to build on Solaris x86 - it forgets the locations of libmpfr

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #16 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 09:59 --- Subject: Re: gcc fails to build on Solaris x86 - it forgets the locations of libmpfr BlanchardJ at ieee dot org wrote: --- Comment #15 from BlanchardJ at ieee dot org 2010-01-15 05:12

[Bug c/42755] New: Using _Complex_I on Open Solaris fails to build an executable

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net GCC build triplet: SunOS hawk 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc GCC host triplet: SunOS hawk 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc GCC target triplet: SunOS hawk 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42755

[Bug c/42755] Using _Complex_I on Open Solaris fails to build an executable

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #1 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 10:30 --- Created an attachment (id=19608) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19608action=view) simple_complex.c C source code -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42755

[Bug c/42755] Using _Complex_I on Open Solaris fails to build an executable

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #2 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 10:31 --- Created an attachment (id=19609) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19609action=view) Preprocessed header -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42755

[Bug bootstrap/36481] gcc fails to build on Solaris x86 - it forgets the locations of libmpfr

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #18 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 13:15 --- Subject: Re: gcc fails to build on Solaris x86 - it forgets the locations of libmpfr BlanchardJ at ieee dot org wrote: --- Comment #17 from BlanchardJ at ieee dot org 2010-01-15 12:37 --- Yes

[Bug c/42753] _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler.

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #7 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 16:02 --- (In reply to comment #5) *** Bug 42755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to comment #4) This is a fixincludes bug; it needs to fix Sun's complex.h header to work with GCC. I've

[Bug target/42753] _Complex_I is reported as undeclared. Code builds with Sun compiler.

2010-01-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #9 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 18:25 --- (In reply to comment #8) Fixincludes is part of the compiler sources, and it is the part that should work around GCC-incompatible system headers (such as this one) by making fixed copies when GCC is built

[Bug bootstrap/36481] gcc fails to build on Solaris x86 - it forgets the locations of libmpfr

2010-01-14 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #14 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2010-01-15 04:44 --- (In reply to comment #10) In reply to #9: I have tried to build gcc with and without my own patch on our solaris machines. While both of them fails they fail at the same place (namely configuration

[Bug bootstrap/41899] New: gcc fails to build on OpenSolaris, as gcc uses non-standard option to 'find'

2009-11-01 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net GCC build triplet: SunOS hawk 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc GCC host triplet: SunOS hawk 5.11 snv_111b i86pc i386 i86pc GCC target triplet: SunOS

[Bug target/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-10-01 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #26 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-10-01 08:34 --- I should have added this some time back, but Sun have confirmed this is a bug. I should have a IDR from Sun myself in a couple of weeks, and a patch will be on sunsolve some time after that. It will be fixed

[Bug fortran/41080] New: gfortran -dumpversion does not behave like gcc or g++

2009-08-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net GCC build triplet: Solaris 10 update 7 on Sun Ultra 80 GCC host triplet: Solaris 10 update 7 on Sun Ultra 80 GCC target triplet: Solairs 10 update 7 on Sun Ultra 80 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug fortran/41080] gfortran -dumpversion does not behave like gcc or g++

2009-08-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #2 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-08-15 20:10 --- Thank you. Does this mean the next version of gcc will support this? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41080

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-18 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #23 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 14:36 --- (In reply to comment #22) (In reply to comment #20) buf[n] = 6; memset (buf+n, 0, i + j); if (buf[0] != 6) It looks like you forgot to replace the second buf[0] by buf[n]. Sorry, my

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-18 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #24 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 14:44 --- I should have added, the core dumps were observed on gcc versions 3.4.3 4.2.4 4.4.0 4.4.1 20090715 (prerelease) on the Sun T5240 with it's T2+ processors. The success on the Sun Blade 2000 was only tried

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-18 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #25 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 19:33 --- (In reply to comment #24) I should have added, the core dumps were observed on gcc versions 3.4.3 4.2.4 4.4.0 4.4.1 20090715 (prerelease) on the Sun T5240 with it's T2+ processors. The success

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-17 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #18 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-17 11:19 --- (In reply to comment #17) Try: typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t; extern void *memset (void *, const void *, size_t); extern void abort (void); volatile size_t i = 0x8000U, j = 0x8000U; char buf[16

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-17 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #20 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 01:14 --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #18) I've compiled and linked that code. It does not abort. Bad point for this theory :-( The result could still depend on the alignment of the pointer, so

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-17 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #21 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-18 01:18 --- (In reply to comment #20) (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #18) I've compiled and linked that code. It does not abort. Bad point for this theory :-( The result could still depend

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-16 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #7 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-16 10:19 --- (In reply to comment #4) mpfr-2.4.1 compiles and tests Ok for me on an Ultra5 (USIIi) running sparc64-linux, with gmp-4.2.4 (compiled by gcc-4.3.4) and gcc 4.3.4, 4.4.0, and 4.4.1 20090630. I don't have

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-16 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #8 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-16 10:24 --- (In reply to comment #4) Sounds a lot like PR39867 and PR40747 are hitting you. Can you grab those fixes, apply them to your 4.4.0, rebuild it, and test mpfr again? Or get the 4.4.1-RC and test that instead

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-16 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #10 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-16 12:32 --- (In reply to comment #9) folding happens even at -O0 and both bugs are in the folder. So, please try ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.1-RC-20090715/ first. I tried it. kir...@t2:[/tmp

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-16 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #13 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-16 21:29 --- (In reply to comment #11) You haven't mentioned what options you compiled this file with. So, assuming -O2, I see: add %i4, -1, %l5! n,, tmp186 sethi %hi(1073740800), %o2

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-16 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #15 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-17 03:21 --- (In reply to comment #14) You haven't mentioned what options you compiled this file with. the problem appears both with -O0, -O1 and -O2. Paul Also worth noting is that this builds fine with some

[Bug c/40757] gcc 4.4.0 miscompiles mpfr-2.4.1

2009-07-16 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #16 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-07-17 04:11 --- (In reply to comment #0) See http://websympa.loria.fr/wwsympa/arc/mpfr/2009-07/msg00031.html and the following discussion. This was on t2.math.washington.edu with /usr/local/gcc-4.4.0-sun-linker/bin/gcc

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-28 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #14 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-28 16:49 --- Created an attachment (id=18086) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18086action=view) Top level config.log, with libraries in /usr/local/lib This is the top level config.log. I'll post

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-28 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #15 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-28 16:52 --- Created an attachment (id=18087) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18087action=view) sparc-sun-solaris2.10/libgcc/config.log with mpfr and gmp libraires in /usr/local/lib. As you will note

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-28 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #16 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-28 16:55 --- I thought my comments were going to appear before the files were posted, not after it. Anyway, the libraries are in /usr/local/lib, and appear to work, as I can compile and link against them. kir...@t2

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-28 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #17 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-28 17:17 --- I just realised that: LDFLAGS='-L/usr/local/lib -R/usr/local/lib' BOOT_LDFLAGS='-L/usr/local/lib -R/usr/local/lib' export LDFLAGS export BOOT_LDFLAGS was probably not the best way to do this. I'm not even

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-28 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #18 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-28 19:30 --- I have solved this. The key was setting LD_OPTIONS LD_OPTIONS='-L/usr/local/lib -R/usr/local/lib' I suspect that is a Solaris Environment variable, which is useful to the Sun linker I was using

[Bug bootstrap/40572] New: gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-27 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
LD_FLAGS Product: gcc Version: 4.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net GCC

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-27 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #1 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-27 20:25 --- Created an attachment (id=18081) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18081action=view) Top level config.log -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40572

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-27 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #2 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-27 20:29 --- Created an attachment (id=18082) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18082action=view) sparc-sun-solaris2.10/libgcc/config.log This is the file, which shows it can't find the library, a couple

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-27 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #4 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-27 20:57 --- (In reply to comment #3) What is the LDFLAGS supposed to do? Is it supposed to adjust the run-path of the built executables to find the mpfr/gmp libraries to not need LD_LIBRARY_PATH set? Note

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-27 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #5 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-27 21:00 --- (In reply to comment #3) Note that setting LDFLAGS maybe not what you want (it affects stage1 only AFAIK), you likely want to set BOOT_LDFLAGS. Sorry, forget to comment on that. I'll try that. I would

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-27 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #7 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-27 22:31 --- (In reply to comment #6) LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for the runtime linker/loader so it is needed as you are running programs which use shared libraries stored in a non standard place. So is any user who uses

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-27 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #8 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-27 22:57 --- It looks as though we will have to agree to differ about the LD_LIBRARY_PATH being the right way to do things. But do you not agree that this probably should be found at an earlier stage in the build process

[Bug bootstrap/40572] gcc insistance on using LD_LIBRARY_PATH and ignoring LD_FLAGS

2009-06-27 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #11 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-28 03:51 --- (In reply to comment #3) Note that setting LDFLAGS maybe not what you want (it affects stage1 only AFAIK), you likely want to set BOOT_LDFLAGS. FWIW, BOOT_LDFLAGS. that did not solve it either. I think

[Bug c/40524] New: gcc 4.4.0 failure of: e1 ? e2 : e3 on Solaris (several machines, all configured differently)

2009-06-22 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
: gcc Version: 4.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net GCC build triplet: SunOS kestrel 5.10 Generic_139555-08

[Bug target/40524] gcc 4.4.0 failure of: e1 ? e2 : e3 on Solaris (several machines, all configured differently)

2009-06-22 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #2 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-22 23:42 --- Created an attachment (id=18051) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18051action=view) config.log from the Sun Blade 2000 This is the config.log that was generated on the Sun Blade 2000. gcc

[Bug target/40524] gcc 4.4.0 failure of: e1 ? e2 : e3 on Solaris (several machines, all configured differently)

2009-06-22 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #3 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-22 23:52 --- Created an attachment (id=18052) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18052action=view) config.log from a 16-core Sun T5240 This is config.log from the Sun T5240, which was configured to use

[Bug target/40524] gcc 4.4.0 failure of: e1 ? e2 : e3 on Solaris (several machines, all configured differently)

2009-06-22 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #4 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-22 23:56 --- i take you point, but I'm still puzzled why the two print statements should be different. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40524

[Bug target/40524] gcc 4.4.0 failure of: e1 ? e2 : e3 on Solaris (several machines, all configured differently)

2009-06-22 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #5 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-23 00:04 --- Thinking about this more, why should it matter if the type being printed is of a smaller size than the print statement. This clearly works ok, drkir...@kestrel:[~] $ cat test2.c #include stdio.h int main

[Bug bootstrap/40504] New: Configure make a makefile, despite saying: mpfr.h... buggy but acceptable

2009-06-20 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
Component: bootstrap AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net GCC build triplet: SunOS kestrel 5.10 Generic_139555-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade- GCC host triplet: SunOS kestrel 5.10 Generic_139555-08

[Bug bootstrap/40504] Configure make a makefile, despite saying: mpfr.h... buggy but acceptable

2009-06-20 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #2 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-20 17:47 --- OK, i take your point - I should have taken more notice of the actual error message. It would be sensible to give some advice to the user, like what would not be a less buggy version. If possible, it would

[Bug bootstrap/40447] New: Add a switch to configure to allow *source* directory of mprt and gmp to be specified.

2009-06-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
. Product: gcc Version: 4.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net GCC build triplet: N

[Bug bootstrap/40447] Add a switch to configure to allow *source* directory of mprt and gmp to be specified.

2009-06-15 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #4 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-15 16:56 --- I assume this is only in your experimental version. I can see that is an improvement. I still think the switch would be useful, but it does reduce the need for it somewhat. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug bootstrap/40360] New: configure: error: cannot compute suffix of object files: cannot compile

2009-06-06 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
: cannot compile Product: gcc Version: 4.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel

[Bug fortran/40358] New: nternal error: Segmentation Fault (program f951) on Solaris.

2009-06-05 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40358

[Bug fortran/40358] nternal error: Segmentation Fault (program f951) on Solaris.

2009-06-05 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #2 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2009-06-05 22:10 --- Thanks. On closer inspection, it appears compilation, which was performed on one SPARC and moved to another is broken quite seriously. Ignore this bug report. dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug bootstrap/36481] gcc fails to build on Solaris x86 - it forgets the locations of libmpfr

2008-06-10 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
--- Comment #2 from david dot kirkby at onetel dot net 2008-06-10 22:37 --- Subject: Re: gcc fails to build on Solaris x86 - it forgets the locations of libmpfr pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-10 08:52

[Bug c/36481] New: gcc fails to build on Solaris x86 - it forgets the locations of libmpfr

2008-06-09 Thread david dot kirkby at onetel dot net
Component: c AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: david dot kirkby at onetel dot net http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36481