This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

Dennis Clarke <> writes:

>>> I'm uncertain if Solaris 8/x86 still supports bare i386 machines, so it
>>> might be better to keep the default of pentiumpro instead.
>> Solaris 8 won't run on anything less than pentium, I recently
>> convinced someone else to stop building GCC for i386 on Solaris:
> The Os is on Vintage support until March 2012. Also, I never had problems

That's not the question (but one reason why Solaris 8 support will be
removed after GCC 4.7).  As Jonathan documented, you can't run S8 on a
bare 80386, so there's no reason the default code generation to that CPU.

> with it before. As for "completely redundant options" I have been building
> gcc like this for a while. also never a problem before.
> This is a case of "magic configure incantation" required ? I certainly
> hope not.

Quite the contrary: leave out any configure option unless you absolutely
need it because the defaults don't work, document why you need them, and
re-check that info for every release.  If you think configure should
detect the condition on its own, file a bug report for that.

These `I've used them for ever' options tend to do more harm than good,
and confuse other users that check how your copy of gcc was built.  This
is especially bad for distributors like yourself, since the number of
confused people is far larger than for some company-internal build ;-)


Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]