This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: More DG/UX Intel Build info
- To: <egcs at egcs dot cygnus dot com>
- Subject: RE: More DG/UX Intel Build info
- From: "Eric Raskin" <ehr at listworks dot com>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 14:21:02 -0400
- Reply-To: <ehr at listworks dot com>
Sorry to reply to my own post....
If the patches are considered distributable, will someone please give me the
newbie info on exactly how to produce them and package them up for
distibution. I'd like to save someone else the work, if I can.
Eric Raskin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-egcs@egcs.cygnus.com [mailto:owner-egcs@egcs.cygnus.com]On
Behalf Of Eric Raskin
Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 2:13 PM
To: egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: More DG/UX Intel Build info
I've looked closely at the test results from the testsuite after building on
DG/UX 4.20MU03 on the Intel platform. I have the same tests failing here as
for the linux gcc platform [execute/980526-1.c, ieee/980619-1.c,
gcc.dg/980626-1.c, gcc.dg/clobbers.c, gcc.failure/940409-1.c], plus one
other set -- loop-2e.c, loop-2f.c, and loop-2g.c in gcc.c-torture/execute.
It seems this is a deficiency in the mmap() system call on DG/UX, in that
setting a MAP_FIXED memory map address overwrites memory somehow, resulting
in the exit() call failing. In other words, the test itself succeeds and
exit() gets an error!
The fix I used was to change from a MAP_FIXED argument to letting the mmap()
call assign its own starting memory address. These tests now succeed, and
the compiler tests as well here as it does on Linux.
Given this result and my previous post (DG/UX Intel Build problem) of this
morning, shall I post the patches made? Is this considered "working well
enough" to be distributed?
TIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Eric H. Raskin Voice: 914-769-7100 x321
President, CSC Division Fax: 914-769-8070
The Listworks Corp. E-Mail: ehr@listworks.com
1 Campus Drive
Pleasantville, NY 10570