Re: [jbglaw at lug-owl dot de: Re: r214024 - in /trunk/gcc: ChangeLog c-family/Cha...]

[Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw at lug-owl dot de>]

On Sat, 2014-08-16 18:35:41 +0200, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 August 2014 17:19, Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <lopezibanez@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, I just noticed I committed the wrong patch and afterwards I
> > was not building Fortran.
> 
> I spoke too fast. Although it is true I haven't build Fortran after
> the patch went it, I just did and I didn't get the above errors.
> 
> Can anyone else reproduce this? Perhaps is it a target-specific issue?

Not target-specific. Look at
http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/timeline.php?limit=4000 ,  it's all the
config-rules.mk builds that fail. The last build that seems to be
successful is
http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id=327932,
while the first failing seems to be
http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/show_build_details.php?id=327937

  Build 327932's top commit is b71839120cfa70f06e5c03d7c9cbb63884a3890b
(Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@redhat.com>, config/rs6000/rs6000.c
(rs6000_emit_move): Use SDmode for[...]).

  Build 327937' top commit is, well, your commit (Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez
<manu@gcc.gnu.org>, PR fortran/44054).

  The main difference between the "config-list.mk" and the "other"
builds is that the others use a smaller set of languages, Fortran not
being among them.

  I also thought about that there might have been a GCC update on the
gcc{20,76} machines, but I'm 100% sure that there was no update on
"pluto", which also shows failed builds since then.

MfG, JBG

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbglaw@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481
Signature of:                http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
the second  :

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature