This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Sparc bogosity
- From: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, lucier at math dot purdue dot edu, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 16:42:42 -0500
- Subject: Re: Sparc bogosity
- References: <200201312122.g0VLMEi11887@banach.math.purdue.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:48:04PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Geoff Keating <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> | ... no-one notices, because few people have sparcv9 hardware,
> I have access to couples of multiprocessors sparcv9 machines, but due to
> non-bootstrappability of the tree, I gave up. It is a circular issue.
Likewise. I guess the big kicker for me was the presence/absence of GNU
binutils: without them, stuff doesn't seem to work nearly as well, but
when they are used we're no longer testing the default installation.
[Cue my standard "I have a dream" speech of a future compiler package
which simply ships & requires its own assembler, linker, etc, and can
take full advantage of them all the time.]
I have no problem telling my sparcs to run a nightly tester, but I don't
have the time to investigate the weird failures when it doesn't bootstrap.
(I don't know a thing about SUBREG_doohickey, or whatever was needed for
sparcv9 to work.)
Once rth reports bootstrapability, I can start a nightly tester of some
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams