On 01/28/2011 07:49 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Ralf Corsepiusralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes:
On 01/27/2011 07:15 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
What is the preferred combination of
--enable-newlib and --with-newlib settings
to build with newlib in the gcc source tree
but not build it and use
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
I would suggest:
GOARCH=mips# o32
GOARCH=mips64n32 # Would you believe n32?
GOARCH=mips64n64 # ...n64
I think the only real question is whether that first 64 helps.
I don't think so: in the n64 case, it's just double, and for n32 it's
Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes:
- Remove newlib from the source tree
--without-newlib should probably be enough.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E
And now for something completely different.
On 28 January 2011 01:11, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
* a.out NetBSD (arm*-*-netbsd* not matching arm*-*-netbsdelf*,
i[34567]86-*-netbsd* not matching i[34567]86-*-netbsdelf*, vax-*-netbsd*
not matching vax-*-netbsdelf*).
This implies some x86 targets are expected to work, but NetBSD-current
can't
On 01/28/2011 10:15 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Ralf Corsepiusralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes:
- Remove newlib from the source tree
--without-newlib should probably be enough.
Good point, agreed.
In case of Joel and rtems the situation probably can be furtherly
simplified:
RTEMS has
There is a discussion about codecompletion feature of gcc, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00433.html
since the author did not update it for about nearly a year.
Now, I have create a patch to against vanilla gcc 4.5.2, I have tested
it under Windows, and it works fine.
see:
I have just added a new section (approved by Gerald) to the bottom of
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html
Its intention is to mention noteworthy internal changes, i.e. changes
interesting for, say, maintainers of backends/frontends outside the
tree, and of course plugin developers upgrading
2011/1/27 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Laurynas Biveinis
laurynas.bivei...@gmail.com wrote:
The --enable-checking=valgrind does two things. First, it provides
Valgrind annotations for internal GCC allocators so that Valgrind has
a better idea
2011/1/27 H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com:
I think it is useful. I have run --enable-checking=valgrind once and it
took daays to finish. But I haven't got time analyze the result.
Do you mean, bootstrap + testsuite? IIRC someone submitted a few bug
reports (fixed now) in a row some three
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:43:28 +0200
Laurynas Biveinis laurynas.bivei...@gmail.com wrote:
I have just added a new section (approved by Gerald) to the bottom of
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html
Its intention is to mention noteworthy internal changes, i.e. changes
interesting for, say,
On gc-improv I am working on PCH (mis-)feature that it stores a few
RTXes in a PCH file through tree (think tree_decl_with_rtl). I would
like to keep GTY completely away from RTL and that requires keeping
away RTL from PCH too.
In recent discussions on increasing GCC modularity, were there any
2011/1/28 Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net:
Its intention is to mention noteworthy internal changes, i.e. changes
interesting for, say, maintainers of backends/frontends outside the
tree, and of course plugin developers upgrading from 4.5 to 4.6.
I am not sure to understand
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 19:44, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
1- Rietveld always send the patch sent to it to gcc-patches@ (provided
the submitter added gcc-patches to the CC list).
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 January 2011 01:11, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
* a.out NetBSD (arm*-*-netbsd* not matching arm*-*-netbsdelf*,
i[34567]86-*-netbsd* not matching i[34567]86-*-netbsdelf*, vax-*-netbsd*
not matching vax-*-netbsdelf*).
This implies some x86
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 19:44, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
1- Rietveld always send the patch sent to it to gcc-patches@ (provided
the submitter added gcc-patches to the CC list).
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 08:25, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
If a patch (over 400kB) is being excluded from the message because of size
(and somewhat larger patches could still be included as gzipped
I have not looked into upload.py's source code, so I don't know if the
limits
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Laurynas Biveinis
laurynas.bivei...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/27 H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com:
I think it is useful. I have run --enable-checking=valgrind once and it
took daays to finish. But I haven't got time analyze the result.
Do you mean, bootstrap
On 01/28/2011 04:58 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/28/2011 10:15 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Ralf Corsepiusralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes:
- Remove newlib from the source tree
--without-newlib should probably be enough.
Good point, agreed.
In case of Joel and rtems the situation probably
Matthew Plant wrote:
I'm just kidding, I was going to make a joke about being conservative
about memory but then I realized I would be making fun of my own
heritage.
Well, there was that glaring bug that caused the compiler to betray
a developer's trust by brutally mangling his private
Andreas Schwab sch...@redhat.com writes:
Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes:
- Remove newlib from the source tree
--without-newlib should probably be enough.
But that seems strange to me as some of the configure scripts test for
--with-newlib and adjust their configury
On 01/28/2011 04:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andreas Schwabsch...@redhat.com writes:
Ralf Corsepiusralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes:
- Remove newlib from the source tree
--without-newlib should probably be enough.
But that seems strange to me as some of the configure scripts test for
Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net writes:
I am not sure to understand what is the social rules to modify that. I
suppose that any patch to that page should be approved with the same
strong process as patches to trunk code?
I would say that any gcc maintainer may update the changes
On Jan 28, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
2011/1/28 Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net:
Its intention is to mention noteworthy internal changes, i.e. changes
interesting for, say, maintainers of backends/frontends outside the
tree, and of course plugin developers
Hi gcc gurus,
I'm trying to port GCC to a new architecture, I'm new to gcc, and have
little problems defining add correctly.
My target has 2 types of (DI mode) registers, so I defined 2 classes:
- class D (data) regs can be used for computations, and that includes
operations such as additions
On 01/28/2011 09:17 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andreas Schwabsch...@redhat.com writes:
Ralf Corsepiusralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes:
- Remove newlib from the source tree
--without-newlib should probably be enough.
But that seems strange to me as some of the configure scripts test for
On 01/28/2011 05:48 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 01/28/2011 09:17 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andreas Schwabsch...@redhat.com writes:
Ralf Corsepiusralf.corsep...@rtems.org writes:
- Remove newlib from the source tree
--without-newlib should probably be enough.
But that seems strange to
Jean-Marc Saffroy jean-marc.saff...@joguin.com writes:
error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 1424 1423 141 (set (reg:DI 2 r2)
(plus:DI (reg:DI 2 r2)
(const_int 40 [0x28])))
/home/jmsaffroy/cygnus/src/newlib/libc/time/strptime.c:165 24 {adddi3}
On 1/28/2011 10:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 January 2011 01:11, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
* a.out NetBSD (arm*-*-netbsd* not matching arm*-*-netbsdelf*,
i[34567]86-*-netbsd* not matching i[34567]86-*-netbsdelf*, vax-*-netbsd*
not matching vax-*-netbsdelf*).
This implies some x86 targets
On 01/28/2011 06:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jean-Marc Saffroy jean-marc.saff...@joguin.com writes:
error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 1424 1423 141 (set (reg:DI 2 r2)
(plus:DI (reg:DI 2 r2)
(const_int 40 [0x28])))
A quick question about -no-canonical-prefixes...
By default, gcc calls realpath() on prefixes generated relative to
argv[0] in the gcc driver. If gcc is held as a symlink farm the
realpath() makes it fail (absent a lot of messy -B, -L, -isytem and so
on). It complains about not finding cc1 or
Jean-Marc Saffroy jean-marc.saff...@joguin.com writes:
On 01/28/2011 06:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jean-Marc Saffroy jean-marc.saff...@joguin.com writes:
error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
(insn 1424 1423 141 (set (reg:DI 2 r2)
(plus:DI (reg:DI 2 r2)
On Sun, 23 May 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
I am wondering, should I stop the weekly snapshot for the GCC 4.3
branch and just create them ad hoc when there is demand?
It would be nice if the scripts could check whether only DATESTAMP
changes were done since the last snapshot ...
How can this
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Simon Baldwin wrote:
A quick question about -no-canonical-prefixes...
By default, gcc calls realpath() on prefixes generated relative to
argv[0] in the gcc driver. If gcc is held as a symlink farm the
realpath() makes it fail (absent a lot of messy -B, -L, -isytem and
Simon Baldwin sim...@google.com writes:
By default, gcc calls realpath() on prefixes generated relative to
argv[0] in the gcc driver. If gcc is held as a symlink farm the
realpath() makes it fail (absent a lot of messy -B, -L, -isytem and so
on). It complains about not finding cc1 or
On 28/01/2011 23:05, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
So it seems like people want it both ways. Some people want to invoke a
symlink which points to the real gcc, which requires canonicalization.
Some people want the real gcc to be a symlink which points elsewhere,
which requires
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47505
Summary: [OOP] Intrinsics which should operate on polymorphic
objects (BT_CLASS)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47506
Summary: [OOP][Fortran 90+] Assumed-size array checks
(polymorphic and component)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid, diagnostic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47507
Summary: PURE functions with VALUE arguments invalidly rejectd
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #26 from Xavier zazzou at gmail dot com 2011-01-28 09:11:27 UTC
---
Thanks for your work.
Question : I tried to build my own version, but i did not succeed.
(1) gcc-4.5.2 : ok
(2) gcc-4.5.2 + modified/added files from trunk (4.6) :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47508
Summary: [4.6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure with -ftracer
for pr42918.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47147
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
09:29:54 UTC ---
patch posted for review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00881.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16896
Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16896
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-01-28
09:41:37 UTC ---
Ok, if you have to do something different for 36104, makes sense. Otherwise, if
you ask my opinion, being a temporary fix anyway, I would not be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47489
Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46914
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2011-01-28
09:43:44 UTC ---
Ok, with --with-arch-32=i486 in the configure options and -m32 on the command
line the problem can be reproduced.
Frankly, I don't understand what is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43062
--- Comment #27 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
09:45:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
Question : I tried to build my own version, but i did not succeed.
(1) gcc-4.5.2 : ok
(2) gcc-4.5.2 + modified/added files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36104
--- Comment #15 from Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
09:51:23 UTC ---
Patches 1-3 restore gcc-4.2 behavior. Configure works, the library builds, most
all of the tests pass regression, etc.
Unfortunately, this is still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47454
Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44554
Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47279
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
10:11:28 UTC ---
I am using the last 4.6 that built ok as host compiler, a snapshot from
6th december last year. Binutils is the 2.11 release, but the build
also failed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46317
Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46914
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44554
Christian Eggers christian.eggers at kathrein dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46762
Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ibolton at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47044
Francois-Xavier Coudert fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10 |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47509
Summary: avr-gcc error: could not split insn
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47508
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45122
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
10:57:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Richi, which one is “second”? The second I posted, or the second in the
active
attachment list? (the third posted
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47498
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47504
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47477
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
11:04:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Alternatively, this narrowing of word mode operations could as well be done
during tree optimizations. I think the FE is the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47510
Summary: DW_TAG_typedef can have children when designating a
naming typedef
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47496
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
11:12:52 UTC ---
You should use
if (HAS_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME_P (expr)
DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME_SET_P (expr))
DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME (expr);
calling decl_assembler_name on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47510
--- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
11:13:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 23149
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23149
Candidate patch
I am bootstrapping this patch at the moment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47505
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28 11:20:04 UTC ---
I think the following ones should work fine (re-check?):
* ALLOCATED
* ASSOCIATED
* EXTENDS_TYPE_OF
* SAME_TYPE_AS
* STORAGE_SIZE
The array (+coarray?) intrinsics we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44554
--- Comment #19 from Ian Bolton ibolton at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
11:30:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #17)
gcc 4.4.5 was released in October. Please can you confirm if this is now
fixed.
I think THIS bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
11:42:11 UTC ---
Please specify the linker you are using and compile-flags you are using to
build SPEC - you should know the information you gave is not enough to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44174
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|i686-linux |i686-linux,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47511
Summary: [C++0x] ICE: unexpected ast of kind template_decl in
potential_constant_expression_1, at
cp/semantics.c:7711
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
12:01:13 UTC ---
Works for me with -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops and
rpm -q binutils
binutils-2.20.0-0.7.9
using gold as plugin-ld.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47512
Summary: ICE in queue_insn, at haifa-sched.c:1322
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44174
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
12:36:54 UTC ---
Between 20110121 and 20110127, the new gcc.target/i386/asm-6.c test started
failing again on mainline (i386-pc-solaris2.1[01], 32-bit only):
It probably
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47512
--- Comment #1 from Jan-Jaap van der Heijden J.J.vanderHeijden at gmail dot
com 2011-01-28 12:37:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 23150
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23150
natString.ii
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47512
--- Comment #2 from Jan-Jaap van der Heijden J.J.vanderHeijden at gmail dot
com 2011-01-28 12:38:13 UTC ---
Created attachment 23151
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23151
natString.s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44174
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-28 12:40:52 UTC ---
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
12:36:54 UTC ---
Between 20110121 and 20110127,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47400
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-26 15:33:03 UTC ---
From my reading of libiconv 1.13.1 libcharset/tools/{irix-6.5,
osf1-5.1}, it seems that there isn't any such locale. If this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47513
Summary: [C++0x] [SFINAE] compiler rejects valid code
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44174
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.4/4.5 Regression] can't |[4.4/4.5/4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47279
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
12:48:34 UTC ---
I assume the binutils 2.11 and 2.10 versions are typos and you meant 2.21 and
2.20? I'll fire off a build using your configure options and report back.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47514
Summary: Source file over a certain size compiles but will not
run
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44174
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-28 13:04:36 UTC ---
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
12:45:43 UTC ---
You're right: I somehow misread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47514
--- Comment #1 from Joost VandeVondele Joost.VandeVondele at pci dot uzh.ch
2011-01-28 13:33:41 UTC ---
could be windows specific, since both testcases run fine here
(x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu), with 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47514
Brendan brendanarnold at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Host||Windows XP - SP3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-01-28 13:46:06
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Please specify the linker you are using and compile-flags you are using to
build SPEC - you should know the information you gave is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47515
Summary: Issues porting libgo to IRIX 6.5
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: go
AssignedTo: i...@airs.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45170
--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28 13:53:25
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 28 13:53:19 2011
New Revision: 169356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169356
Log:
2011-01-28 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35810
--- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28 13:53:25
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 28 13:53:19 2011
New Revision: 169356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169356
Log:
2011-01-28 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47350
--- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28 13:53:25
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Fri Jan 28 13:53:19 2011
New Revision: 169356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=169356
Log:
2011-01-28 Paul Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47497
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46567
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com
2011-01-28 14:18:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 23153
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23153
testcase with O0
With this testcase and -O0:
$ gcc -fgnu-tm -O0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44174
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
14:29:30 UTC ---
Ok for mainline (I'll post to gcc-patches anyway)?
Sure, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47454
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47513
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47508
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-eabi|arm-eabi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47350
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47508
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47516
Summary: ICE with reallocate on assignment w/
--disable-bootstrap
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35810
--- Comment #15 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-28
14:59:03 UTC ---
Close as FIXED (for the 4.6 trunk).
Left overs:
- ICE mentioned in comment 12 - now PR 47516
- Assignment to polymorphic LHS, PR 43366
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35810
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44031
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
