This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.2.1 : bootstrap fails at stage 2. compiler produces wrong binary for wrong processor
> "Dennis Clarke" <email@example.com> writes:
>> SUMMARY : the stage 2 compiler produces the wrong binary type for this
> This question is appropriate for the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
> rather than the email@example.com list. Please take any followups to
> gcc-help. Thanks.
I was not aware that this list was not a general gcc mail list.
I figure that basic configure - make - make check is a general thing.
>> In either case I think that the --host needs to be specified as well as
>> perhaps --with-cpu=foo or something like that in the ./configure line.
> It does seem from your description that you need to set the host
> explicitly. That is not documented because it is rarely necessary.
Hardly a valid point. The terms "not documented" is just not a very
open source way of doing things. Oh well ... I guess I have to hunt
> Apparently the config.guess shell script produced the wrong results on
> your system.
That looks to be correct.
> The option you want is --build, as in --build=sparc-sun-solaris2.8.
I'll slide that into the ./configure line and have another go at it.
> I don't actually know which --build option you want here.
> I don't even know for sure that your old machine is supported.
Well the idea here is that any old generation sparc machine ( sun4m ) will
produce binaries that run on everything all the way up to the new Niagara
and Sun UltraSparc IV without issue. Any difference in performance is a
secondary and minor consideration that boils down to clock speed anyways.
At the moment GCC 4.2.1 seems to be tied to the UltraSparc processor and
thus the older sun4m and 32-bit Sparc machines are being ignored. They are
still out there and still running in various places. The real issue
*should* be that I can build GCC for a basic Sparc target if I want.
Thank you for the pointers and I'll have a look at that.
As for the other mail list, do I really need to subscribe to yet another
mail list? :-(