------- 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