http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54659
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com 2012-12-11
14:14:47 UTC ---
Tobias, what is your full configure line alongside --disable-nls?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46501
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56412
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56412
--- Comment #5 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com 2013-04-19
17:46:37 UTC ---
CYGPATH_W gets set correctly, but libtool seems to ignore it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56909
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52672
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50048
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954
--- Comment #20 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com 2012-06-22
02:05:45 UTC ---
As we're in 4.8 now, consider this a friendly ping :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28145
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50461
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54080
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53361
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53361
--- Comment #10 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com ---
Oh, strange. I thought I was still experiencing this on 4.8.2. I'll check
again. Sorry for the noise.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55606
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com ---
Are you sure C++ works like that? I thought that member variables in a struct
would get default initialized to indeterminate values, as seen here:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36750
--- Comment #10 from nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com ---
So should I open a new PR for not warning in C++? Because even the = {0}
case warns there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
nightstrike nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nightstrike
--- Comment #11 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-02-06 04:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=17259)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17259action=view)
Kai's attempt
This patch has a few caveats:
You can't use the winsup link hack to work around the issue
--- Comment #9 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-02-14 22:56 ---
Verified to fail on win32 and win64, not just win64. Can someone with
sufficient privileges adjust Target?
Verified to work in 4.3, so this is a regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39179
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-09 02:10 ---
Was this broken in 4.3 compilers? Is it a 4.4 regression?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37121
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:46 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00638.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:49 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00636.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:52 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00634.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:54 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00641.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 15:57 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00640.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-14 16:00 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg00639.html
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-03-20 05:28 ---
I can confirm that our 4.3 release worked, and that this is a 4.4 regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39356
never used
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64
dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34315
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-12-02 19:48 ---
Sorry, the copy and paste was cut short. The full warning list is this:
/tmp/rt/build/gcc-svn/gcc/libobjc/archive.c: In function 'objc_read_class':
/tmp/rt/build/gcc-svn/gcc/libobjc/archive.c:911: warning: cast
-pc-mingw32
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-12-11 16:10 ---
This is impeding development of the x86_64-pc-mingw32 toolchain. Is there any
way to gain help on this from the gcc community?
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-12-12 17:33 ---
What do they mean?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34316
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-12-12 17:33 ---
Does anyone know why the %ld formats are not recognized as valid?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34315
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35151
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-12 02:39 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00350.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35124
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-14 01:17 ---
This bug needs to be finished off before 4.3.0 closes...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35124
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-14 01:53 ---
Can we have this fixed before 4.3.0? x86_64-pc-mingw32 is a new target for
this release, and it shouldn't be delivered completely broken.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-14 14:27 ---
Subject: Re: g++ inoperable with no error message
On 14 Feb 2008 08:15:35 -, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 08:15
--- Comment #13 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-14 14:29 ---
Addendum - this applies to gfortran, as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--- Comment #14 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-16 17:22 ---
edited title to reflect gfortran failure, as well.
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-19 05:32 ---
Here is the email thread that started it all:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-02/msg00197.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35250
: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: trivial
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35250
--- Comment #9 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-19 22:23 ---
Was this patch ever submitted?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34571
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35256
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33652
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|blocker
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33652
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-10-10 18:44 ---
Changed the title to better reflect what was transpiring.
This problem has since been fixed, so I am closing it.
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33797
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-10-20 19:12 ---
Explicit paths for mingw for as and ld should not be required. We fixed this
for mingw-w64, and the same thing should be applied to mingw32. This same
error occurs regardless of whether or not you are in a mingw
: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34019
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2007-11-07 23:27 ---
Wow, fast!
I may not be able to contribute much, but I do so where I can :)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34019
: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: *-w64-mingw*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40376
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-06-25 13:58 ---
I imagine this applies to any target, not just win64 targets. I can't change
that setting, though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40516
: nightstrike at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37641
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-25 05:00 ---
What is the output of g++ -v?
Are you using the win32 cross compiler, or the win64 native compiler?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37121
--- Comment #3 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-25 15:04 ---
I think that was a mistake. He was just trying to confirm the PR, and probably
meant to set it to WAITING as opposed to ASSIGNED. I saw your emails to
gcc-patches. If you could commit the change, that'd be awesome
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC target triplet: x86_64-*-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-11-27 17:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=16785)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16785action=view)
My first crack at enabling the support
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-08 07:48 ---
Created an attachment (id=16849)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16849action=view)
Second attempt
This gets us further along
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-13 21:19 ---
As per jakub, it is space separated.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-13 21:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=16906)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16906action=view)
Third attempt
There were a few lines in t-mingw32 that were commented out and shouldn't have
been there. Fixed
--- Comment #7 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-13 23:01 ---
Tested and verified on win64
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-12-14 00:11 ---
To complete this patch, we need to make multilib not be the default.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-23 11:12 ---
Here's an even better way to do it:
Index: configure.ac
===
--- configure.ac(revision 132554)
+++ configure.ac(working copy
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-24 03:31 ---
This is a very simple fix. Can someone add it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35250
--- Comment #16 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-03-06 03:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=15267)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15267action=view)
Preprocssed source for the testcase mentioned
I took the code that I mentioned in the first post in this bug
--- Comment #18 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-03-06 05:09 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
What is the Fortran test case that makes this is a gfortran issue?
PROGRAM HelloWorld
WRITE(*,*) Hello World!
END PROGRAM
I haven't tested that again with the latest changes
--- Comment #19 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-03-06 16:08 ---
Ok, compiling the aforementioned Hello, world! program using gfortran
--save-temps hello.f90 results in f951.exe maxing out the CPU forever.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-06 14:55 ---
Created an attachment (id=15434)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15434action=view)
Preprocessed source
This is the preprocessed source that causes the ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-pc-mingw32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35842
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-06 15:07 ---
To clarify the title, the ICE goes away with all optimization levels when
-fno-tree-ch is used.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35842
--- Comment #18 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-06 16:03 ---
What is the status on this? I am having a lot of test timeouts when testing
the x86_64-pc-mingw cross compiler, as sometimes there are slow programd and
annoying ssh network delays. Extending the timeout
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-12 19:37 ---
I made the title more appropriate. Also, I think this has now been fixed, so
should the status be changed to Resolved - Fixed?
--
nightstrike at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #4 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-23 23:04 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
BTW: The testcase doesn't fail for x86_64-linux. Can you please regression
test the patch (and write a testcase ;) on *-mingw target?
I'm not set up for regtesting on x86_64-mingw32 (nor
--- Comment #7 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-04-24 14:21 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #4)
I am set up for running the testsuite on x86_64-pc-mingw32, however it takes
several days to complete. Is there a reduced set of tests that I can run?
I have
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-mingw32
GCC target triplet: x86_64
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-05-04 23:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=15577)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15577action=view)
Preprocessed source
This is the preprocessed source that is used in the compilations mentioned in
the PR
--- Comment #21 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-05-13 13:23 ---
ping.. Is there anyone that can help us with this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35159
--- Comment #5 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-05-25 06:54 ---
I am regtesting it now. Note that it will take a very long time to complete
(several days).
This does apply to 4.3 and 4.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36321
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-12 05:36 ---
Current warning list as of revision 151630:
../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/io/write.c:328:8: warning: passing
argument 2 of 'write_default_char4' from incompatible pointer type
../../../../../build/gcc/gcc
--- Comment #15 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 16:30 ---
Current list:
../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/io/list_read.c:1847:10: warning:
variable 'elem' might be clobbered by 'longjmp' or 'vfork'
../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/io/list_read.c:1849:10
--- Comment #16 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 16:33 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Subject: Bug 41219
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Sat Sep 12 15:08:27 2009
New Revision: 151653
As of r151914, this warning still exists when the host=linux64 and the
target=win64
--- Comment #18 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 17:36 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/iso_c_binding.c:98:24:
warning: 'str' may be used uninitialized in this function
I think this warning is bogus:
index_type
--- Comment #20 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2009-09-21 18:12 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #17)
../../../../../build/gcc/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/iso_c_binding.c:98:24:
warning: 'str' may be used uninitialized
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-07-10 00:49 ---
Kai, can you apply FX's fix?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34315
--- Comment #12 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-07-14 17:09 ---
On 4.2.4 and 4.3.1, I get this:
$ cat a.c
int f(void) {}
$ cat b.c
int f(void) {}
$ /opt/cfarm/release/4.3.1/bin/gcc -combine a.c b.c
a.c:2: error: redefinition of 'f'
a.c:1: error: previous definition of 'f
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: nightstrike at gmail dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-cygwin
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-cygwin
GCC target triplet
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-12 04:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=16057)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16057action=view)
Preprocessed source
This is the preprocessed source for the file that causes the ICE
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-12 04:46 ---
Preprocessed source added as attachment. Also note that the bootstrap gcc was
built with cygwin's gcc, which is a modified 3.4.4.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37091
--- Comment #6 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-13 14:23 ---
Is 2.95 still the minimum gcc required for the build?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
--- Comment #8 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-22 06:47 ---
I can confirm this bug (seeing as how the one I wrote got duped to here). Can
someone update the status to confirmed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
--- Comment #10 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-08-22 17:41 ---
How can you close this if the tuples merge makes it impossible to build gcc
with version 3.4? The minimum gcc is still 2.95.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
--- Comment #14 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-09-12 05:47 ---
I just wanted to confirm that Joesph's patch does indeed work (thank you!), and
ask that the status of this PR change from INVALID to FIXED.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37086
1 - 100 of 311 matches
Mail list logo
