------- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-06-29 14:57 ------- > Yes, but I'm asking if it was a bootstrapped compiler (in difference to one > built with configuring with --disable-bootstrap) or not. > > If it was a bootstrapped compiler, are you saying that bootstrap fails with > r161501 (initial comment), but works when using r161462 plus patch of 161496?
The compiler was bootstrapped at revision 161436 then updated to 161443, 161455, 161459, and 161462, then updated with the patch leading to revision 161496 applied. What gives the reduced test case on a post r161496 gcc on linux? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44699
