Re: GCC bootstrap failure on ARM

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:

> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:
>
>> David Craven <david@craven.ch> writes:
>>
>>> I can help fixing package regressions if someone gets the ball
>>> rolling. Is there a reason to upgrade to gcc 5 or does it make sense
>>> to jump to gcc 6 directly? If I understand correctly most of the work
>>> required for an update to gcc 5 has already been done?
>>
>> Until the bootstrapping problem on ARM is fixed, we can't do any of
>> this.  At the moment, that's blocking us from even updating to 4.9.4,
>> nevermind 5 or 6.  If you want to help us upgrade our default GCC,
>> investigating that problem would be the best way.
>
> It might be that fixing bootstrap with GCC 5 (or 6) or ARM wouldn’t be
> much harder than with 4.9.
>
> For the record, this is how far I got with GCC 5:
>
>   https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71399

I’ve made some progress on this, as reported on bugzilla.  I’m now
trying to bisect the issue; however, since the bootstrapping failure of
gcc-final is due to a problem that manifests in gcc-boot0, that’s a lot
of rebuild, and the machine I’m using (redhill) is slow.

Anyway, we’ll have a patch reverting a few 4.9.3-to-4.9.4 commits, and
that’ll allow us to proceed.  I’d like to reduce that patch as much as
possible, but I’d like to stop researching by the end of next week so we
can then freeze core-updates.

Ludo’.