http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150
--- Comment #24 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-18 16:36:37
UTC ---
*** Bug 39186 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150
--- Comment #22 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-07-07 09:24:19
UTC ---
Author: ro
Date: Thu Jul 7 09:24:16 2011
New Revision: 175958
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175958
Log:
gcc:
PR target/39150
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #20 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-30 16:35 ---
I know this PR is closed, and don't want to reopen it or anything; sorry for
being late to the party. But the information missing from it is that
../gcc/configure CC='gcc -m64' ...
should allow config.guess to
--- Comment #19 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-07-22 11:50 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Adding an additional 64-bit default configuration
(like amd64-pc-solaris2* or whatever) doubles the testing burden on me for
no
real benefit. In fact, I believe that the
--- Comment #18 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-07-21 23:17 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #16 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-07-20 19:02 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
--- Comment #16 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-07-20 19:02 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #13)
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:20
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-20
19:20 ---
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #16 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-07-20 19:02 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to
--- Comment #15 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-17 02:34 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:20 ---
This is an Enhancement
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06
19:27 ---
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:20 ---
This is an Enhancement (EG: I wish
--- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 19:54
---
But what's the *point* of having such a configuration, except as a prove
of `we can do that'? Any actual problem that would be solved this way?
Same as on Linux: the compiler will be faster and able to
--- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:20 ---
... the time it takes to analyze and fix problems. This is practically
doubled if you have two different configurations to test, and I simply
cannot afford that, given that this is a spare-time activity. That's
--- Comment #7 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 19:55 ---
As long as there are any Solaris 2/x86 versions supported with 32-bit kernels,
we'll need to keep the i386-pc-solaris2* configurations, which handles creating
64-bit binaries just fine. Adding an additional 64-bit
--- Comment #8 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 19:56 ---
As stated: closing as WONTFIX.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 20:54 ---
*** Bug 30726 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 22:09
---
Adding an additional 64-bit default configuration
(like amd64-pc-solaris2* or whatever) doubles the testing burden on me for no
real benefit. In fact, I believe that the sparcv9-sun-solaris2 configurations
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28
22:17 ---
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 22:09
---
While the advantages of
--- Comment #6 from grobian at gentoo dot org 2009-10-23 12:12 ---
this sounds like bug #30726
for what it's worth, my updated patches for gcc-4.4 can be found here:
--- Comment #5 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-02-16 13:11 ---
Results for 4.4.0 20090215 (experimental) [trunk revision 144190] (GCC)
testsuite on x86_64-pc-solaris2.11
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-02/msg01526.html
Rob
--
--- Comment #3 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-02-13 08:36 ---
Here is another person who makes the same complaint (with a patch):
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/2951
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39150
--- Comment #4 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-02-13 09:11 ---
Googling for amd64-pc-solaris2.11 gives a few hits.
Googling for x86_64-pc-solaris2.11 gives a dozen hits.
That is not many. Perhaps there is 'no such word'.
It seems there are a few others who discovered this problem:
--- Comment #2 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2009-02-12 13:36 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
How is this major, this is an enhancement to the build system. i386-solaris
is
a multi arch target so it includes the x86_64 solaris target also.
It could be called an enhancement to the
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-11 20:56 ---
How is this major, this is an enhancement to the build system. i386-solaris is
a multi arch target so it includes the x86_64 solaris target also.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
24 matches
Mail list logo
