This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc-3.1 bootstrap (all languages) successful with -O3 -funroll-loops
- From: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Arto Nirkko <arto dot nirkko at insel dot ch>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:17:18 -0700
- Subject: Re: gcc-3.1 bootstrap (all languages) successful with -O3 -funroll-loops
- References: <200205291017.MAA15989@neuro.insel.ch>
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 12:17:22PM +0200, Arto Nirkko wrote:
>
> gcc-3.1 bootstrap (all languages) successful with -O3 -funroll-loops
>
> # output of config.guess:
> sparc-sun-solaris2.6
>
> # output gcc -v:
> Reading specs from /usr/local/links/bin/../lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.6/3.1/specs
> Configured with: ../gcc-3.1-static-bimbo2.6/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc/gcc-3.1 --disable-shared --with-gnu-as --with-as=/usr/local/bin/as --with-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/local/bin/ld --enable-threads --with-cpu=supersparc --enable-cpp --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --disable-nls
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 3.1
>
> # languages
> all (full distribution)
>
> # sytem info
> Solaris 2.6 (with recent patches) on Sun Ultra-1;
> the produced binary installation is also successfully used
> on Sparcstation-4 (Solaris 2.6), which is why -msupersparc was used,
> and also to be used on Ultra-10 (Solaris 2.7/8)
>
> # other info
> in contrast to earlier versions (including gcc-3.0.4), everything
> and all languages built fine even using non-standard options
> for the bootstrap:
> -fPIC -O3 -funroll-loops -msupersparc -Qn -Wa,-Qn -s
Thanks! Your message is linked from the GCC 3.1 build status list at
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.1/buildstat.html.
> However, the testsuite results (submitted using the script)
> deviate slightly from the ones reported for Solaris2.6
> (presumably bootstrapped with more standard options).
Your test results are linked from the same entry.
> ***** Why do the compiler flags used for the bootstrap *****
> ***** do not get reported with gcc -v, and are also *****
> ***** not required for reporting? *****
> (it seems to make a difference, even regarding to the success
> of the bootstrap, resp. of the stage2/3 comparison, which failed
> with gcc-3.0.4 with the above flags...)
For reports of successful bootstraps we ask for additional relevant
information that's not on the list. The assumption is that people
used the default bootsflags.
Janis