This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug bootstrap/11169] bootstrap failure after passing configure options
- From: "jeroen dot dobbelaere at acunia dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 13 Jun 2003 11:04:14 -0000
- Subject: [Bug bootstrap/11169] bootstrap failure after passing configure options
- References: <20030612091735.11169.jeroen.dobbelaere@acunia.com>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11169
jeroen.dobbelaere@acunia.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
------- Additional Comments From jeroen.dobbelaere@acunia.com 2003-06-13 11:03 -------
Status update :
- The patch resolved the bootstrap problem I've been having (thanks !).
I also think that (currently) this is the right solution.
- Latest results are available on :
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-06/msg00765.html>
- Will this patch be applied to binutils ?
A question :
- what is the benefit of having two 'soft-float' versions ?
(one with fpa ordening, one with vfp ordening ?) Won't this just add more
confusion ?