http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-17
05:55:57 UTC ---
I'm now running AIX 6.1, oslevel -s returns 6100-06-03-1048 and the
problem seems to persist with newer versions of gcc as well. I installed
gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #31 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2011-05-17 07:17:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
I'm now running AIX 6.1, oslevel -s returns 6100-06-03-1048 and the
problem seems to persist with newer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #29 from Richard Nolde richard.nolde at cybox dot com 2011-05-16
23:19:24 UTC ---
On 04/01/2011 06:24 AM, michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot at wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #28 from Michael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #28 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2011-04-01 12:24:32 UTC ---
Looks like IBM fixed their Assembler to ignore invalid .line pseudo-ops
again:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #27 from Richard Nolde richard.nolde at cybox dot com 2011-02-28
15:57:00 UTC ---
On 02/25/2011 10:52 AM, dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #26 from David Edelsohndje at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #24 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2011-02-25 09:49:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Using your suggestion for gmake bootstrap STAGE1_FLAGS=-0 gets me much
further in the build. The problem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #25 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2011-02-25 09:53:57 UTC ---
Ohw, and then there is bug#47032 (caused by bug#46481) you might stumble upon
in libgfortran.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #26 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-25
17:52:21 UTC ---
Richard,
Did you look at the list of sites providing pre-built binaries for AIX listed
on the GCC website:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/binaries.html
There
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #19 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-24
09:26:58 UTC ---
/usr/bin/gcc -c -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall
-Wwrite-strings
-Wcast-qual -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #20 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2011-02-24 20:42:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
/usr/bin/gcc -c -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC ...
This is a problem in /usr/bin/gcc, not in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #21 from Richard Nolde richard.nolde at cybox dot com 2011-02-24
20:53:42 UTC ---
On 02/24/2011 01:42 PM, michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot at wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #20 from Michael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #22 from Richard Nolde richard.nolde at cybox dot com 2011-02-24
22:27:13 UTC ---
On 02/24/2011 01:42 PM, michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot at wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #20 from Michael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #23 from Richard Nolde richard.nolde at cybox dot com 2011-02-25
00:20:54 UTC ---
On 02/24/2011 01:42 PM, michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot at wrote:
Progress report on building Gcc 4.5.0 on AIX 6.0:
Using your suggestion for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
Richard Nolde richard.nolde at cybox dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-17
12:35:26 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 17 12:35:21 2011
New Revision: 168897
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168897
Log:
PR target/46655
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-17
12:37:00 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Mon Jan 17 12:36:55 2011
New Revision: 168898
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168898
Log:
PR target/46655
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #14 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2010-12-13 12:46:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Is the 64K limit really new? Is this really a change in AIX as or did
something else change and start
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #10 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2010-11-30 12:22:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I believe the line number field in XCOFF is defined in
/usr/include/linenum.h.
According to that file, in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot at changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22538|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #12 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-30
15:43:15 UTC ---
I assume that SP6100-04-07-1036 added a bounds error check for the line number
in the assembler, which previously ignored the overflow. I don't know what AIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #13 from hainque at adacore dot com hainque at adacore dot com
2010-11-30 17:49:20 UTC ---
dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Did something change in GCC that now generates line 0 debug
information?
For Ada cases, we had mixups with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #6 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot
at 2010-11-29 09:05:53 UTC ---
I'm in contact with IBM vi a customer's support channel - initially for another
problem, and have added this 64k-line-limit recently.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-29
09:09:21 UTC ---
The compiler needs to be prevented from emitting .line 0 in any case since BFD
also chokes on that.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #8 from hainque at adacore dot com hainque at adacore dot com
2010-11-29 09:17:03 UTC ---
dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Has anyone reported this AIX assembler behavior to IBM? It would be
much more effective coming from an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-29 22:28:20
UTC ---
If I understand correctly, the line 0 error occurs in both AIX and BFD, so it
is not a bug. Did something change in GCC that now generates line 0 debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #5 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-29 00:17:54
UTC ---
Has anyone reported this AIX assembler behavior to IBM? It would be much more
effective coming from an external customer than from me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #4 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot
at 2010-11-26 13:54:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 22538
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22538
Workaround to emit .line values 0 and 64k only
For
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #3 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot
at 2010-11-25 12:30:37 UTC ---
Huh - AIX-as also doesn't accept line numbers =65536 any more since
SP6100-04-07-1036 it seems, as I get an error on .line 118674 from
31 matches
Mail list logo
