http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-14 22:06:49 UTC --- On 7/14/2011 4:35 PM, sje at cup dot hp.com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746 > > --- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey<sje at cup dot hp.com> 2011-07-14 20:34:28 > UTC --- > Are you trying to use a 32 bit GCC to bootstrap a 64 bit GCC? I see you have > CC set to gcc64 which makes me think that you are using a 64 bit GCC to do the > bootstrap but you have -mpa-risc-2-0 in CFLAGS, which I think means the 32 bit > 2.0 instruction set and I don't think it should be used for 64 bit builds. > > Can you bootstrap if you leave off the -mpa-risc-2-0 flag The flag shouldn't matter. hppa64 is always PA 2.0. hppa64 is also always PIC, so -fPIC is also redundant. The issue is with the bootstrap compiler gcc64. Is it actually 3.4.6 (gcc64 -v)? Did gmp and mpfr compile and check ok with it? These need to be 64-bit. The 64-bit 3.X versions of hppa64 were somewhat buggy and there were also some buggy distributions. If your gcc64 compiled gmp and mpfr ok, I would suggest trying to build a early 4.X release, then jump to 4.6. This may avoid the out of range field. I think that you also need a separate 64-bit version of gas. I'm not sure SOM and ELF can be supported with a single gas binary. HP uses a wrapper. I always compiler two separate versions of binutils. GCC on PA-RISC can't easily support both 32 and 64-bit targets because of the differences between SOM and ELF. This is not a blocker since the bug is in the bootstrap compiler. If you add -save-temps to the failing compile, this will save the assembler output. This will allow inspection of the problematic instructions. I would guess we are dealing with a bl or b instruction. A b,l instruction would have a 21-bit range. Dave
