Re: Build failure of trunk on i686-pc-gnu-linux

2 msg	Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #21623] boot.h: Use the...
2 msg	bug with -fleading-underscore doubling undersco...
2 msg	Events output fail in libjava
3 msg	SIMD-enabled and -lpthread incompatible?
1 msg	gcc-4.1-20071119 is now available
5 msg	Has anyone idea/plans for GCC-4.4? No such road...

Build failure of trunk on i686-pc-gnu-linux
\ Thomas Schwinge (18 Nov 2007)
. \ Thomas Schwinge (20 Nov 2007)
. . \ Ismail Dönmez (20 Nov 2007)
. . \ Andrew Pinski (20 Nov 2007)
. . . \ Thomas Schwinge (20 Nov 2007)

2 msg	Earlyclobber misunderstanding in local-alloc.c?
1 msg	gcc-4.3-20071116 is now available
12 msg	Limits of stage3 changes
4 msg	FW: matrix linking
1 msg	ICE in in compare_values_warnv, at tree-vrp.c:701
2 msg	Modulo operation in C for -ve values
2 msg	Help understanding overloaded templates
7 msg	own target: combine emits invalid RTL
8 msg	[LTO] LTO breaks if debug info is stripped from...
4 msg	bootstrap failure with rev 130208
1 msg	Handling overloaded template functions with var...
10 msg	How to let GCC produce flat assembly
4 msg	Build Failure for gcc-4.3-20071109

Subject:	Re: Build failure of trunk on i686-pc-gnu-linux
Group:	Gcc
From:	Thomas Schwinge
Date:	20 Nov 2007

Hello!

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 05:22:52PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 11/19/07, Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge> wrote:
> > I'm glad that nobody answered. I've been doing nothing wrong. And also
> > it's not someone else's fault. But let me tell you what in fact was
> > going wrong.
>
> I think the reason why nobody answered is because we are all busy
> doing real work.

Now I'm not sure about how to take that one. I for sure didn't mean to
blame or even insult someone of you GCC people. But then, why do you now
in turn think I wasn't trying to get ``real work'' done?

> > I had a some-months-old checkout of GCC trunk on my disk. Now I needed
> > such a checkout and thought: ``Good that the old one -- which I only used
> > once for compiling and didn't do any modifications to it -- is still
> > laying around: I'll simply use that one after having ran a ``svn update''
> > in there.'' I also ran a ``svn diff''. No modifications shown. Also, I
> > attempted a ``svn status'', but as that one -- apart from completely
> > saturating the system's disk I/O (Pentium M with 1.7 GHz, 768 MiB of RAM)
> > -- didn't give any output after having it had running for half a minute,
> > I terminated it again. After all, both ``svn update'' and ``svn diff''
> > had made me think that the tree was as clean as it could be. (SVN was
> > made for easy transition from CVS, right?)
>
> I use svn stat all the time without any issues. It does take over a
> half a minute for some of my local trees (they are not FSF GCC checks
> and include a lot more files) but it is reasonable.

On a freshly booted, otherwise idle system:

#v+
$ time svn status
M libgcc/config.host
M gcc/config.gcc
M gcc/unwind-generic.h
M gcc/config/i386/gnu.h
M gcc/config/gnu.h

real 2m17.461s
user 0m2.972s
sys 0m2.736s
#v-

Subsequent runs, as long as the data is still being cached, are much
faster, of course.

> What version of svn are you using? It might be something which is
> already fixed in a newer version of svn.

This is what Ubuntu feisty ships, which is version 1.4.3 (r23084), Ubuntu
package version 1.4.3dfsg1-1ubuntu1.2.

Regards,
Thomas