Re: PR4114, 4113, 4082, 4078, (part of) 4096 plus other reports in gcc-bugs

[Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>]

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010824165100.4991A-100000@taarna.cygnus.com>,
Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:

> [...] There's a long history of this crazy bit, which you may
> remember, where Richard Henderson, Rainer, etc. need this configure
> bit for their NFS source partition or whatever.  [...] you get my
> point. It would be nice if the build process was bullet proof.

> It's not.

OK.

> [...] What might be a better idea is to check, before libstdc++
> releases, that builddir == srcdir works (or doesn't, and hard code a
> configure error), and that Gerald's pathological build directory
> (with colons and forward slashes, escape codes, whatever) works.

OK.

> That way we don't have to mess with it all the time, and when people 
> insist on configuring this way, the maintainers can insist on using 
> a stable version. Sound reasonable?

Yes.  Based on all the input collected over the weekend, I will
attempt to produce a patch for this issue tonight...

> ps. as an aside, would it be possible for some of your BSD regression 
> testers on x86/alpha to test the experimental tree? I would like to be 
> able to keep tabs on this stuff, and gcc-testresults seems like a good 
> way to do it. It's very helpful when I make config changes.

Yes, since ref4 and ref5 usually produce identical results, I have
switched ref5 to test the gcc mainline instead of 3.0.X.

Beast, the alpha machine, is now taking over 24 hours to bootstrap and
check on some days (due to other load on the machine) thus I have
already scaled it back to 3 times a week.  If it would help, I could
have it run mainline twice a week and the 3.0.X branch once a week.

Regards,
Loren