gcc-3_2-branch bootstrap failure when using bison-1.50
Tue Oct 15 00:22:00 GMT 2002
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 11:26:17PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >I'll leave it to our release manager to decide if this issue warrants
> >backporting the relevant patches or not.
> I think that your point that we will include the generated files on the
> branch is a good one; let's not backport the patches given that.
Counter-argument - Since I (like Matthias) track Debian unstable, I no
longer have bison 1.35 to use with the 3.2 branch. I can, I suppose,
grab an old tarball, build it, install it as bison1.35, and pass
BISON= every time I do a build on the 3.2 branch, but this is a fair
amount of work.
Worse, any OS distribution which (a) includes gcc 3.2, (b) does so by
tracking the 3.2 CVS branch instead of working from offical release
tarballs, and (c) does not maintain side-by-side packages of bison
1.35 and 1.50, will have the same problem. And it may be necessary
for them to start maintaining side-by-side packages of 1.35 and 1.50
in order to make the problem go away. Debian unstable is in precisely
Thus, provided that we can nail the noncompile/920923-1.c regression,
and provided that bison 1.35 continues to work, I think we probably
should backport the fixes for bison 1.50.
More information about the Gcc-bugs