You would probably be better of discussing this on gcc-help. gcc-bugs is rather full of bugzilla traffic and normal mails are easily missed.
Have you tried setting CONFIG_SHELL in the environment? Also, when running the build use something like make SHELL=/bin/bash R. On 03/11/14 20:22, Michael Felt wrote: > What I have not yet found is how to get the SHELL variable to not use > /bin/sh because this is causing a failure immediately at the start of > make: > > root@x064:[/data/prj/gnu/gcc/objdir/gcc-4.7.4]make > [ -f stage_final ] || echo stage3 > stage_final > /bin/sh[3]: 0403-057 Syntax error at line 1 : `-qlanglvl=extc89' is > not expected. > make: *** [all] Error 2 > > Setting a link from /bin/sh to "bash" is just a way of breaking the > host. I hope there is be a normal way to resolve this. > > regards, > Michael > > p.s. 4.5.4 fails elsewhere - it does not come as far as 4.7.4 or 4.6.4 > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Michael Felt <aixto...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I fear that after being set to "wontfix" an entry such as >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63714 will be completely >> ignored. >> >> >> That is not what I was expecting having spent nearly 8 hours yesterday >> looking for something I may have missed. >> >> I do not understand how to move forward from: Don't bootstrap GCC with >> IBM XLC. - considering that is the compiler I have. >> >> As I commented in the "bug" above, there are issues I have run into >> with gcc from other sources. If it turns out there is no other way, >> then that shall be the path forced upon me - but I prefer to research >> and package my own so that the demands on the host finally get >> documented - rather than libraries that step on each other and damage >> existing programs. >> >> That my submission is on the "bug-list" is because that is what seemed >> to be the correct path to submit a question. That gcc decides to never >> include any result in the source tree is of course your choice. >> >> I merely wish to express my hope for some sort of assistance in moving >> forward versus a stonewall of "don't care". >> >> FYI: I am trying 4.5.4 now as well, but I fear the same result. >> >> Maybe it is just a shell thing (e.g. needs a specific bash behavior) >> >> I shall continue to post, suggestions welcome. >> >> Michael