------- Comment #12 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-08 16:10
-------
Interesting. Something platform-specific must be going wrong here.
The original build failure shouldn't have happened even without
the attached patch because ggc-none.o should provide a definition
of ggc_free. The cc1 link shouldn't fail because $(GGC).o should
be linked into libbackend.a.
It's probably easier to track down why the original failure happened,
rather than why the cc1 one happened, so could you try again without
the patch I attached and see why ggc-none.o isn't providing a
definition of ggc_free?
As things stand, I don't think this was caused by my 2006 patch
after all, so I'll unassign myself to avoid confusion. (I'll keep
myself on cc: because I'm curious what's wrong.)
--
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2007-11-06 21:38:47 |2007-11-08 16:10:18
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34003
