This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: Re: hpux regression vs 4.0.1

From: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>, tromey at redhat dot com, Java Patch List <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:44:26 -0600
Subject: Re: Re: hpux regression vs 4.0.1
References: <m3d5q5b0pw.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <42C2ECA9.3050707@redhat.com> <42C30712.5070109@codesourcery.com> <1120081999.4621.200.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050629231718.GA10549@synopsys.com>
Reply-to: law at redhat dot com

On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 16:17 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 03:53:18PM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > (*)  The hpux11 target description assumes that the linker shipped with
> > hpux11 supports +init as an option.  Well, that may work OK for some
> > versions of hpux11, but it certainly doesn't work for hpux11.00 with
> > the 990903 version of the linker.  Grrr.
> 
> I have an hpux11.0 box available, and could run tests of your patch
> if you like.
I doubt it would have (or will make) much of a difference at this
point.  I don't think anyone could have predicted the muck-up with
the arguments passed to ld and the re-bootstrap that had to run
after working around it.

As long as I don't kill this 3rd machine I think we'll be OK.

jeff

References:
- Re:
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re:
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Re:
  - From: Jeffrey A Law
- Re: Re:
  - From: Joe Buck

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