Hi Jonathan, Thank you for your answer.
> No, don't configure in the source directory: > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#configure OK. > And it hasn't been necessary to run 'make bootstrap' for years, just > running 'make' does exactly the same thing now. Actually, "make" works better than "make bootstrap": While "make bootstrap" fails with the cited internal compiler error while compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_add.c, "make" runs to completion. I started both in separated subdirectories and configured with the same options. So, if nobody is using "make bootstrap" any more, that explains why I hit that internal compiler error. > I don't see this error when building master on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > This might be a local problem, caused by your host compiler, or the > versions of GMP, MPFR, or MPC, or something else. You were probably running "make", not "make bootstrap"? Next, I ran "make -k check". Its output shows 182 failures in various test suites. What am I supposed to do? - Apply common sense and ignore the failures if they don't have an apparent relation with my contribution? - Repeat the entire build without my patch, and see if I get the same 182 failures? - Submit my patch to gcc-patches@ anyway, attaching the list of failures? In summary ========== I think it would greatly help contributors if the wiki page https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing was modified: 1) to mention that the build should be done in a subdirectory or sibling directory, 2) to mention that '../configure [options]' should be run (even if, to some people, it is obvious), 3) to mention to run 'make', not 'make bootstrap' — because 'make bootstrap' is too fragile, 4) to mention how to deal with the result of "make -k check". Bruno
make-check.log.gz
Description: application/gzip
