Bug 30136 - bootstrap fail for 4.3-20061209
Summary: bootstrap fail for 4.3-20061209
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: bootstrap (show other bugs)
Version: 4.3.0
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-12-10 12:09 UTC by David Binderman
Modified: 2016-09-07 17:57 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed: 2016-09-07 00:00:00


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description David Binderman 2006-12-10 12:09:26 UTC
I just tried to bootstrap gcc-4.3-20061209.

The compiler said

../../src/gcc-4.3-20061209/gcc/config/i386/sync.md:94: unknown mode `<DCASHMODE>'
../../src/gcc-4.3-20061209/gcc/config/i386/sync.md:94: following context is `3 "register_operand" "b")'
make[3]: *** [s-mddeps] Error 1

This is on a x86_64 machine.

I have a memory that 4.3-20061202 also failed to bootstrap.

I know 4.3-20061225 was ok, so my best guess is that the problem
arrived between 20061225 and 20061202
Comment 1 Andrew Pinski 2006-12-13 07:26:53 UTC
Does this work now on the mainline?
Comment 2 David Binderman 2006-12-13 13:25:01 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Does this work now on the mainline?

The only access to mainline I have is
by the weekly snapshots.

I expect to try out 4.3-20061216.

Thus, answer expected Monday 18 Dec 2006.
Comment 3 David Binderman 2006-12-17 09:05:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> I expect to try out 4.3-20061216.

I tried it out and it is still broken.

Is that three snapshots in a row
that fail on x86_64 ?


Comment 4 David Binderman 2006-12-18 09:28:07 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> I tried it out and it is still broken.

I have more detail.

I finally managed to get a working compiler
by removing all of the following flags from the
configure line

--disable-multilib
--with-cpu=opteron
--with-mpfr=/home/dcb/somewhere_else

I am not certain which one causes the problem,
but since the original crash occurs in the machine
description, I suspect that the --with-cpu=opteron
is causing the problem.

Comment 5 Sebastián E. Peyrott 2007-01-15 16:10:13 UTC
I can confirm this problem on recent snapshots as well (20070105 and 20070112). I'm also on x86_64. Bootstrap fails with that same message.

Configuring GCC with:  		
	--prefix=/usr 		
	--bindir=/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.3.98-alpha20070112 		
	--includedir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.98-alpha20070112/include 		
	--datadir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.98-alpha20070112 		
	--mandir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.98-alpha20070112/man 		
	--infodir=/usr/share/gcc-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.98-alpha20070112/info 		
	--with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.98-alpha20070112/include/g++-v4 
	--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu 
	--build=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu 
	--disable-altivec 
	--disable-nls 		
	--with-system-zlib 		
	--disable-checking 		
	--disable-werror 		
	--enable-secureplt 		
	--disable-libunwind-exceptions 
	--enable-multilib 
	--disable-libmudflap 
	--disable-libssp 
	--disable-libgcj 
	--enable-languages=c,c++ 
	--enable-shared 
	--enable-threads=posix 
	--enable-bootstrap 
	--enable-__cxa_atexit 
	--enable-clocale=gnu  
Comment 6 David Binderman 2007-01-17 12:14:29 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> I can confirm this problem on recent snapshots as well (20070105 and 20070112).

Agreed.

Snapshot 20010112 goes wrong and it's definately the flag
--with-cpu=opteron that causes the trouble.

Looks like a broken machine description to me, but I could
be wrong.
Comment 7 Roman Krylov 2007-01-18 19:53:39 UTC
I got same result with --with-cpu=athlon64 on gcc-4.3-20070112 snapshot.
Comment 8 Andrew Pinski 2016-09-07 08:16:16 UTC
Does this work with a much newer GCC?
Comment 9 David Binderman 2016-09-07 09:27:38 UTC
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> Does this work with a much newer GCC?

Hard to say for definite. The machine was recycled many years
ago and is probably in landfill by now.

Given the great age of this bug report, I'd say
it's pretty certain the problem has either gone away 
or we don't care about that machine type by now.
Comment 10 Andrew Pinski 2016-09-07 17:57:49 UTC
So let's close as invalid then.