Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On 2 November 2011 06:52, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
> On 10/31/11 19:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 31 October 2011 17:38, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-10/msg00005.html
>>
>> Quite. ?In fact there are *very* good reasons not to configure for
>> 80386: libstdc++'s configure uses the default arch being configured
>> for, and disables a number of features on i386 because it doesn't
>> support the required atomic ops.
>>
>> So by configuring for i386 you will distribute a GCC package that is
>> missing useful features, but supports an ancient architecture that
>> Solaris doesn't even run on.
>>
>> You should configure for pentium-pc-solaris2.8 or use --with-arch-32=pentium
>
> When not configuring with '--host=i386-pc-solaris2.8', it is config.guess
> that detects 'i386-pc-solaris2.8', just tried here with most recent
> config.guess on i86pc Solaris2.10, result is 'i386-pc-solaris2.10'.
>
> Actually, it is uname showing the 'i386' on Solaris:
> ?$ uname -p ? ? ? ? ? # Prints the current host's ISA or processor type.
> ?i386
> ?$ uname -i ? ? ? ? ? # Prints the name of the platform.
> ?i86pc
>
> So I'd wonder if '--host=i386-pc-solaris2.8' actually does make any difference here.

It's redundant if you *want* to build for that host, but the whole
point is that building for i386 is usually a very bad idea, so
--host=i586-pc-solaris2.8 would be better.