[Bug testsuite/36443] [4.3/4.4 Regression]: HOSTCC doesn't work with installed gcc

[rob1weld at aol dot com]

------- Comment #41 from rob1weld at aol dot com  2009-01-29 15:01 -------
(In reply to comment #35)
> In response to comment #34, the -B option overrides GCC_EXEC_PREFIX and the
> compiler being tested in the build directory is invoked with -B. 
> GCC_EXEC_PREFIX will only be used to find files that are not in the build
> directory.

It causes a few problems and is (obviously?) incorrect.


Proof:

To _exactly_ reproduce the conditions may not be necessary but here they are:

Compile, test and install the trunk (from early this year) on an
Athlon-X2. You likely need to ./configure with additional options,
I believe that "--with-tune=k8 --with-cpu=k8 --with-arch=k8" would
be the minimum. The full list is at the end of this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-01/msg02197.html

Update your source with "contrib/gcc_update" and rebuild (it is
possible to use that script and not reconfigure but you may if 
you wish).

Now, do NOT Install gcc.

Run "make -i check" and when it is complete rename or copy the log.

# mv gcc_build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log
gcc_build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log.PREVIOUS


Now, run "make install".

Run "make -i check" and when it is complete do this:

# ../gcc_trunk/contrib/compare_tests
../gcc_build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log.PREVIOUS_1
../gcc_build/gcc/testsuite/gcc/gcc.log
New tests that FAIL:

gcc.target/i386/funcspec-3.c scan-assembler call\t(.*)popcountdi2
gcc.target/i386/funcspec-3.c scan-assembler popcntq

New tests that PASS:

gcc.target/i386/funcspec-3.c scan-assembler call\t(.*)sse42_pop_l
gcc.target/i386/funcspec-3.c scan-assembler call\t(.*)sse4a_pop_i
gcc.target/i386/funcspec-3.c scan-assembler popcntl
gcc.target/i386/funcspec-3.c (test for excess errors)


That is the "Official Log Comparison Script" and it reports a 
difference on the result of "make -i check" on an un-installed
gcc versus an installed gcc.


Can I say "This is P1, all test results suspect, most invalid." ?

Rob


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36443