[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#175526: Bug #175526

At Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:35:07 +0100,
> GOTO Masanori writes:
> > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > > > I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up -
> > > > Bug #175526 against glibc is m68k specific.  
> > > 
> > > interesting. I am running glibc-2.3 and gcc-3.2 without much problems 
> > > here, will look if I can see something obvious.
> > 
> > I'm building m68k gcc over 11 days, and it's still testing...
> eh, one build, or all three?

One build...

> > We should be careful to read this result is not complete build, it's
> > on the way.  But the result seems good.  I don't know why it becomes
> > OK, but Bug#175526 can reassign to gcc-3.2, and it can be fixed if the
> > latest gcc-3.2 build itself.  I still wait my build to judge (=
> > reassign to gcc-3.2) that it's really right or not.
> I'm trying to build it on crest as well. Unfortunately all my tries
> - using gcc-3.2 as stage1 compiler fail in stage2 with various
>   segfaults, bus errors, etc.
> - same for gcc-2.95 as stage1 compiler with glibc-2.3.1. although it
>   fails during the comparision of the final two stages.
> - currently compiling the latter with an glibc-2.2 environment.
> are some m68k machines more reliable than others?

Hmm, it might be buildd environment problem as Richard Zidlicky noted.

BTW, my build on m68k is completed. The result of all test is the same
one which I reported. So I think #175526 can be reassigned to gcc-3.2
or can be closed and resubmit bug report to gcc-3.2 as 'm68k gcc-3.2
cannot build itself' with important severity. Is it OK?

-- gotom

Reply to: