On 11/22/2009 10:48 AM, John Nowak wrote:
Hello. I would like to get the necessary forms for copyright assignment
to GCC for future work on GNAT. I was told this is the way to kick off
the process.
I sent them offlist.
Paolo
Seems to me that http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-11/msg00648.html
might cause this:
/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/local/gnu/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/
-B/usr/local/gnu/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/
-B/usr/local/gnu/i686-pc-cygwin/lib/ -isystem
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 08:01:57PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Just compiled with -mincoming-stack-boundary=4 and the problem goes
away as gcc now thinks that the incoming stack is already 16 byte
aligned. But that might break code which actually uses SSE
Please don't do this, lying to the
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 08:01:57PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Just compiled with -mincoming-stack-boundary=4 and the problem goes
away as gcc now thinks that the incoming stack is already 16 byte
aligned. But that might break code which actually
Ok, now that 3.4.6 is fully working, I made a start on the 4.4 port.
4.4 appears to have invalidated a lot of 3.4.6 things. Below are all
the changes I needed to make just to get an xgcc executable
built. I didn't really know what most of it was about, but the
purpose was just to scope the
Dave Korn wrote:
If that doesn't fix it please let me know.
The solution was correct, with binutils 2.20
the problem disappeared. There is another
one, however on the snapshot 20091119:
../../gcc/lto-streamer-out.c: In function 'write_global_references':
../../gcc/lto-streamer-out.c:2201:7:
Paul Edwards mutazi...@gmail.com writes:
Index: gcc4/config.sub
diff -c gcc4/config.sub:1.3 gcc4/config.sub:1.4
*** gcc4/config.sub:1.3 Mon Nov 23 12:58:07 2009
--- gcc4/config.sub Mon Nov 23 22:47:08 2009
You should send patches for config.{guess,sub} to
config-patc...@gnu.org.
Andreas.
2009/11/23 Christian Joensson:
Seems to me that http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-11/msg00648.html
might cause this:
/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/local/gnu/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/
-B/usr/local/gnu/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/
Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
If that doesn't fix it please let me know.
The solution was correct, with binutils 2.20
the problem disappeared. There is another
one, however on the snapshot 20091119:
../../gcc/lto-streamer-out.c: In function 'write_global_references':
David Edelsohn wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Ian Bolton bol...@icerasemi.com
wrote:
From some simple experiments (see below), it appears as though GCC
aims
to
create a lop-sided tree when there are constants involved (func1
below),
but a balanced tree when there aren't
On 11/23/2009 11:32 AM, Paul Edwards wrote:
So, given the scope below, can someone please explain what
4.4 changes are affecting me and what I need to do to overcome
them?
I think your best bet is to grep the changelogs for what has changes,
and see what was done for other ports. Many
On Nov 23, 2009, at 10:17, Ian Bolton wrote:
Regardless of the architecture, I can't see how an unbalanced tree would
ever be a good thing. With a balanced tree, you can still choose to
process it in either direction (broad versus deep) - whichever is better
for your architecture - but, as
Hi,
I'm using the latest gcc 4.5 to compile the latest linux kernel(rc8).
$ mips64el-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc --version
mips64el-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 4.5.0 20091123 (experimental)
and encountered this error:
$ make ARCH=mips CROSS_COMPILE=mips64el-unknown-linux-gnu- mm/rmap.o
CHK
2009/11/22 Leandro Nini drfiem...@email.it:
Hi,
in gcc-4.5 lto-wrapper may end up in an endless loop in case of error:
if for example a 'maybe_unlink_file' call from 'lto_wrapper_exit' fails it
calls 'fatal_perror' which in turn calls 'lto_wrapper_exit' again causing
an infinity of
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 13:59, Rafael Espindola espind...@google.com wrote:
2009-11-23 Rafael Avila de Espindola espind...@google.com
* lto-wrapper.c (lto_wrapper_exit): Don't try to delete files if
being called recursively.
OK.
Diego.
The idea I got is about removing .got section in ELF format totally.
Before we go, let's see the limitation on the idea
1) It must be deployed on aligned segment model, such as Linux, which cs.start
= ds.start.
2) Currently, I only know how to do on x86 ELF.
Here is a typical sample in PIC model
Hi, I'm Derrick Coetzee and I'm a grad student working with Daniel
Wilkerson et al on the Hard Object project at UC Berkeley (see
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2009/EECS-2009-97.html). To
minimize implementation effort, we'd like to use gcc as the compiler
for our platform. The main
--- Comment #3 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 08:15 ---
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-portbld-freebsd7.2
Configured with: ./..//gcc-4.4.0/configure --enable-languages=c,ada
--disable-nls --with-system-zlib --with-libiconv-prefix=/usr/local
--program-suffix=44
--- Comment #4 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 08:16 ---
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/gnat/svn/builds/r154285/bin/gcc-r154285
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/gnat/svn/builds/r154285/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.2/4.5.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.2
--- Comment #5 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 08:21 ---
Sorry, but we still need a self contained set of sources attached in bugzilla
(with only the needed sources to reproduce the bug), and a single, stand alone
gcc command line with no extra shell scripts.
See
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 08:47 ---
Subject: Bug 42053
Author: janus
Date: Mon Nov 23 08:47:14 2009
New Revision: 154432
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154432
Log:
2009-11-23 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 08:49 ---
Fixed with r154432. Closing.
--
janus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from carrot at google dot com 2009-11-23 08:51 ---
Fixed by Richard. Close it.
--
carrot at google dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from irar at il dot ibm dot com 2009-11-23 09:02 ---
I tried to vectorize eval.f90 with 4.3 and mainline on x86_64-suse-linux. In
both cases no loop gets vectorized in subroutine eval. The k loop is not
vectorizable because the step of x is unknown (function argument),
--- Comment #2 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-11-23 09:06 ---
hpux11 mixes its own s-osinte spec with the posix body hence the issue:
ifeq ($(strip $(filter-out hppa% hp hpux11%,$(targ))),)
s-osinte.adbs-osinte-posix.adb \
s-osinte.adss-osinte-hpux.ads \
I missed this one
--- Comment #3 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-11-23 09:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=19089)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19089action=view)
Patch for hpux11
Dave, could try this patch?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42153
--- Comment #6 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=19090)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19090action=view)
source file that generates the error
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #7 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=19091)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19091action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #8 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=19092)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19092action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #9 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:17 ---
Created an attachment (id=19093)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19093action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #10 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:17
---
Created an attachment (id=19094)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19094action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #11 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:18
---
Created an attachment (id=19095)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19095action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #12 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:18
---
Created an attachment (id=19096)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19096action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #13 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:18
---
Created an attachment (id=19097)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19097action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #14 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:19
---
Created an attachment (id=19098)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19098action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #15 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:19
---
Created an attachment (id=19099)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19099action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #16 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:19
---
Created an attachment (id=19100)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19100action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #17 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:19
---
Created an attachment (id=19101)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19101action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #18 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:20
---
Created an attachment (id=19102)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19102action=view)
dependency for arc_dir_003.adb
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #19 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 10:22
---
Really fail to see how this is more convenient or useful for anyone involved
but oh well, what do I know?
gcc-4.4.0:
gcc -c pfseudo.ads pfseudo-path.adb pfseudo-archiver.ads
pfseudo-archiver-directory.adb
struct A { char x[1]; };
extern void abort (void);
void __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
foo (struct A a)
{
if (a.x[0] != 'a')
abort ();
}
int main ()
{
struct A a;
int i;
for (i = 0; i 1; ++i)
a.x[i] = 'a';
foo (a);
return 0;
}
fails at -O1 because (early) SRA converts
bb
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42154
--- Comment #20 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 11:02
---
Really fail to see how this is more convenient or useful for anyone involved
but oh well, what do I know?
Attaching a lot of files is indeed inconvenient, that's why
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs
section Detailed
--- Comment #21 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 11:12
---
Created an attachment (id=19103)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19103action=view)
version suitable for gnatchop
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #22 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-23 11:13
---
Any way I can remove the above attachments?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42150
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 11:41 ---
Another example (with generics):
module foo_module
implicit none
private
public :: foo,rescale
type ,abstract :: foo
contains
procedure(times_interface) ,deferred :: times
procedure(assign_interface)
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 12:38 ---
Does your patch still reject
pure function test()
integer, pointer :: p = null() ! INVALID per C1272
integer :: test
test = p
end function test
That is currently rejected as Error: Initialization of pointer
--- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-23 12:40
---
Richard, can you have a look to this one? First blush, I don't see anything
wrong with the code...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from grosser at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 13:02 ---
Subject: Bug 42130
Author: grosser
Date: Mon Nov 23 13:02:08 2009
New Revision: 154440
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154440
Log:
Protect loops that might be executed zero times.
2009-11-23
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 13:10 ---
==29953== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==29953==at 0x400671: sort (qsort.c:16)
==29953==by 0x40079F: main (qsort.c:45)
qsort.c.034t.cddce1 deletes the store to end[i+1].
I
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Summary|GCC 4.5 doesn't compile a |[4.5
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 13:29 ---
int __attribute__((noinline,noclone))
sort(int L)
{
int end[2] = { 10, 10, }, i=0, R;
while (i2)
{
R = end[i];
if (LR)
{
end[i+1] = 1;
end[i] = 10;
++i;
--- Comment #18 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 13:30 ---
Subject: Bug 14777
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Nov 23 13:29:50 2009
New Revision: 154443
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154443
Log:
Fix PR c++/14777
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/14777
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 13:44
---
Without the patch it is rejected, with the patch it is not. I will look into
this further.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42008
--- Comment #19 from dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 13:44 ---
This should be fixed in 4.5. Adjusting the Regression tag.
Not planning to fix in 4.3/44.
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|dodji at gcc dot gnu dot org|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 14:01 ---
I'm looking into this. This example shows why using access-expr to create new
expressions is a dangerous thing to do, at least in some contexts (which I did
not really realize until now). I'd better look at them
--- Comment #6 from david dot resnick at comverse dot com 2009-11-23 14:15
---
(In reply to comment #5)
Subject: Re: g++ should warn or error on internal 0 size
array in struct
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, david dot resnick at comverse dot com wrote:
(In reply to comment #3)
(In
--- Comment #30 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
14:22 ---
Perhaps something like...
Index: dwarf2out.c
===
--- dwarf2out.c (revision 154443)
+++ dwarf2out.c (working copy)
@@ -10447,8 +10447,11 @@
--- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-23 14:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] dsymutil Assertion failed
...
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu wrote:
--- Comment #30 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
14:22
--- Comment #4 from thiago at kde dot org 2009-11-23 14:32 ---
My experience:
gcc 4.4 + binutils 2.18.50.20070820 + no -march: ok
gcc 4.4 + binutils 2.18.50.20070820 + -march=armv7-a: error
gcc 4.4 + binutils 2.19.51.0.2.20090204: ok in both cases
The instruction I had problems with
--- Comment #32 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
14:38 ---
I got this response over on the gdb mailing list regarding
the validity of emitting dwarf debug info containing an
AT_location with any block form having a zero length...
--- Comment #33 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
14:41 ---
I should reiterate the dsymutil's maintainers comments on this issue...
The variable should be checked to make sure it really doesn't have a
location,
and if it doesn't just don't emit the
--- Comment #7 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 14:53 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
OK, can't argue with not breaking existing headers I suppose. But this is to
me clearly a bogus usage. What are the semantics of using internal zero sized
arrays in a struct? They have
--- Comment #34 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 14:53
---
I suppose empty DW_AT_location lists may now denote places where the value
dies and is no longer available. We now properly track this with VTA.
Alex?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41473
--- Comment #4 from guerby at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 14:57 ---
Subject: Bug 42153
Author: guerby
Date: Mon Nov 23 14:56:58 2009
New Revision: 154446
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154446
Log:
2009-11-23 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com
--- Comment #35 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
15:03 ---
If it is in fact valid dwarf, the question remains of what to do about the
breakage that this causes with dsymutil on darwin. Inhibiting the emission of
this in dwarf-strict might be a reasonable
--- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-23 15:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] dsymutil Assertion failed
...
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu wrote:
--- Comment #35 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
15:03
Hello.
I've found bug in GCC 4.4.1 for ARM7TDMI in THUMB mode.
Test code:
void foo(char *bar);
char test()
{
char tmp;
foo(tmp);
return tmp;
}
Compiled with: arm-elf-gcc -S -mcpu=arm7tdmi -O2 -mthumb test.c
Then using -O2 or -O3 optimization, assembler code looks like:
1:test:
2:
--- Comment #37 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
15:26 ---
(In reply to comment #36)
If it's valid dwarf then it is also dwarf-strict. Please get apple
fix its tools and issue a maintainance update. (I'm inclined to close
this bug as invalid)
Richard.
--- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-23 15:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] dsymutil Assertion failed
...
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu wrote:
--- Comment #37 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
15:26
--- Comment #20 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 15:40 ---
If you don't think it's worth fixing on the older branches, the right thing to
do is set the Target Milestone to the release where it will be fixed, and then
close the bug as fixed.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #39 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
15:43 ---
Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but powerpc support stops at Leopard so
we are effectively cutting off powerpc-apple-darwin* from every properly
generating dSYMs in gcc 4.5.
--
--- Comment #13 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2009-11-23 15:43 ---
I think you will need to create a fde-freebsd.c file in gcc/config/ia64 to
define Unwind_FindTableEntry. See fde-glibc.c and fde-vms.c for examples.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40959
--- Comment #40 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 15:49 ---
Given:
2.6.1.1.4 Empty Location Descriptions
An empty location description consists of a DWARF expression containing no
operations. It represents a piece or all of an object that is present in the
source but not in
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 16:10 ---
Subject: Bug 42095
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Nov 23 16:10:19 2009
New Revision: 154449
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154449
Log:
PR middle-end/42095
* tree.c: Include cgraph.h.
--- Comment #14 from mexas at bristol dot ac dot uk 2009-11-23 16:12
---
can I add a FBSD ia64 developer email to the CC list (xcl...@mac.com)?
I tried to do this before, but was refused.
I'm just reporting the bug. I've neigher skill not time
to deal with this.
--
--- Comment #41 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-11-23 16:29 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] dsymutil Assertion failed
...
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu wrote:
--- Comment #39 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
15:43
--- Comment #42 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
16:35 ---
(In reply to comment #41)
So it's the responsibility of the darwin community to come up with
either a fixed dsymutil or a proper re-implementation of it.
Richard.
Unfortunately, dsymutil isn't
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 16:42 ---
*** Bug 42155 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 16:42 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38644 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 17:09
---
Presumably, thanks Laurent.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sometime between mainline revision 154353:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg01929.html
and 154391:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg01929.html
I'm getting massive numbers of objc++ testsuite regressions.
--
Summary: Hundreds of objc++ testsuite
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 18:15 ---
Sorry the second results for 154391 link is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg02040.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42156
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 19:35 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Without the patch it is rejected, with the patch it is not. I will look into
this further.
Would something like if (...-attr.saved) { gfc_error } work, combined with
the patch from
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 20:52 ---
Fixed.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #43 from andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 20:55
---
I understood Jack this way that he asked/is looking for a temporary solution to
prove that this is the only issue we face with dsymutil. It is not the idea,
from my understanding, that we, gcc, 'fix'/tweak gcc to
--- Comment #10 from ltuikov at yahoo dot com 2009-11-23 20:56 ---
Can anyone comment on this?
I'd really like to use gcc 4.4.2 to cross compile ARC.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42116
--- Comment #11 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 21:14 ---
Subject: Bug 42113
Author: uros
Date: Mon Nov 23 21:14:32 2009
New Revision: 154464
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154464
Log:
PR target/42113
* config/alpha/alpha.md
--- Comment #12 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 21:27 ---
Subject: Bug 42113
Author: uros
Date: Mon Nov 23 21:27:30 2009
New Revision: 154465
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154465
Log:
PR target/42113
* config/alpha/alpha.md
--- Comment #13 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-23 21:30 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #44 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
21:41 ---
(In reply to comment #43)
From the technical POV we should try to help isolating the issue.
My 2 cents.
Actually, if the Alexandre's patch...
--- Comment #15 from mexas at bristol dot ac dot uk 2009-11-23 21:47
---
Hi Marcel, sorry to bother you with this again.
Are you happy to be on my Cc list for this bug?
Sure. sje@ doesn't quite know what he's talking about
because he doesn't know FreeBSD.
See also below.
---
--- Comment #11 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 21:48
---
Created an attachment (id=19104)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19104action=view)
another proposed patch
Here's another proposed patch, but there is a problem with it.
If we calculate (m2 -
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-23 21:58 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
OK, that fixed the problem. But shouldn't configuration have caught it?
So, fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 22:01 ---
Closing as fixed, as no complaints about the committed patch have surfaced.
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 22:04 ---
Fixed.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
While building current mainline (rev 154216) again after half a year, the
bootstrap
aborted while building the stage 1 libgcc:
/vol/gcc/src/gcc-dist/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__muldi3':
/vol/gcc/src/gcc-dist/libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:562:1: internal compiler error:
Segmentation fault
--- Comment #5 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 22:10
---
Subject: Bug 36470
Author: hutchinsonandy
Date: Mon Nov 23 22:10:18 2009
New Revision: 154471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154471
Log:
PR testsuite/36470
* gcc.dg/utf-cvt.c: Skip int
--- Comment #2 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 22:19 ---
Proposed patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01311.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42154
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
