https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=123976
--- Comment #231 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Peter Dyballa from comment #230) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #228) > > (In reply to Peter Dyballa from comment #227) > > The branch works under "standard" conditions - as demonstrated by the test > > results here: > > I would not describe Rosetta as close to some "standard" conditions, but > it's my opinion and I never had to try Rosetta (maybe I used it inherently > when I created and tested diversely fat binaries). standard == apple-supplied tools (and therefore available to any user) and a bootstrap compiler built with apple-supplied tools. no extras or go-faster-stripes, just the minimum. > OK, I'll download your *rosetta.txt and try to compare what GNU Emacs saved > as last build log! that file is a set of test results (which obviously cannot be created unless one has a working compiler) ... there is nothing to compare with your build log. ----- this is engineering, there is no supernatural force at work. case A works case B does not figuring out what is different between A and B is the key to solving the problem, and minimising that difference is an essential part of that process. It is possible that one of the system tools has a bug that's not manifested in many previous versions of libgcc, of course - but Occam's razor suggests it's more likely some simpler explanation - like an unexpected change.
