the struggle for a 64-bit GCC on Solaris 10 - part 2

[Ryan Johnson]

On 12/11/2012 4:32 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 4:26 pm
> Subject: Re: the struggle for a 64-bit GCC on Solaris 10 - part 2
> To: Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org>
> Cc: Ryan Johnson <ryan.johnson@cs.utoronto.ca>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>, gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org, ebotcazou@adacore.com
>
>
>> On 12 November 2012 21:20, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>>> I'm still really unclear on why you're having so much trouble with
>>>> this.
>>>> Have you tried bootstrapping with SunCC like I did? Granted, I'm only
>>>> on
>>>> 5.9, but if newer versions fall down that's Oracle's fault, not gcc's.
>>> Since this is a purely gcc 4.7.2 bootstrapped with gcc 4.5.1 as the
>> compiler then it would be
>>> entirely in GCC land and not Oracle.
>> Except that the system headers which declare the problem function come
>> from Oracle.  And that doesn't answer the question.
> No .. I have gone digging to see what is going on in there but it is deep, wide and dark.
>
> I did file a bug report :
>
>      http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55293
>
> I hope I don't have to go fire up my old Solaris 8 server but, it did always result in a good looking GCC bootstrap.
You still didn't say why starting with the Solaris compiler is so 
undesirable... you do realize that the gcc you finally end up with 
(stage 3) will have been built by a gcc (stage 2) that was itself built 
by the gcc (stage 1) produced by suncc, right? Bootstrapping a separate 
version of gcc yourself just to build that stage 1 gcc with adds extra 
(and painful and unnecessary) steps to the process.

In the time you've spent writing these emails, a sunc-based bootstrap 
could have completed several times, modulo those funky CFLAGS you added. 
Heck, you could have bootstrapped 4.7.2 and then used *that* to 
bootstrap a "clean" 4.7.2 in the time these emails have taken so far.