--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-21
15:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/01_assoc_laguerre/check_nan.cc
Hm, fixed?
It's fixed on the target. I left it open because I wasn't sure whether
--- Comment #17 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-21
20:40 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] New LTO test failures
Similar errors on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. Excess errors are:
cc1: error: LTO support has not been enabled in this configuration
cc1: error
--- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-19
14:53 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1
(test for excess errors)
Ah. The following fixes it for me on a cross. Can you bootstrap regtest
and
install it? It's
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-19
20:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-2.c execution at -O1 and -Os
This bug was introduced in revision 164136. My comment about 164202
being ok was somehow wrong
--- Comment #15 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-18
18:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #14 from
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-18
19:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-2.c execution at -O1 and -Os
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Can you please reduce preprocessed
--- Comment #16 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-18
22:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #14 from rguenth
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-12
15:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
I have simplified the testcase to include just the two failing portions
from line 160. Some
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-08
00:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1
(test for excess errors)
This change isn't necessary or correct, the test should (and does) fold away
all references to cproj
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-02
16:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/const-uniq-1.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple LC0 2
Revised regexp patch attached.
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-02
16:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #3 from ghazi
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-01
22:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/01_assoc_laguerre/check
_nan.cc
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-30
17:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/01_assoc_laguerre/check
_nan.cc
Please provide preprocessed source. Sounds like my patch uncovered
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-24
15:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] Global constructor not found
Is there another consturctor calling this one? (or can you attach complette .s
file?) Perhaps it is result of my constructor merging patch
--- Comment #17 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-13
13:18 ---
Subject: Re: pthread_default_stacksize_np failed.
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
I think the answer is to provide a stub for pthread_default_stacksize_np
which is linked in last
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-12
13:38 ---
Subject: Re: pthread_default_stacksize_np failed.
Hi Olivier,
Hi John,
PR boehm-gc/34544
(__gthread_active_init): Use pthread_default_stacksize_np instead of
pthread_create
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-12
14:04 ---
Subject: Re: pthread_default_stacksize_np failed.
The function is present in libc.sl on my PA HPUX 11.00 system. Possibly,
this can be fixed by updating your libc version. However, I just noticed
--- Comment #14 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-12
15:03 ---
Subject: Re: pthread_default_stacksize_np failed.
We probably could update our system and document but I don't know what
to think of the more general user base (whether many could possibly
--- Comment #15 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-12
23:26 ---
Subject: Re: pthread_default_stacksize_np failed.
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, John David Anglin wrote:
We probably could update our system and document but I don't know what
to think of the more general
--- Comment #14 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-11
13:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression]: gcc.dg/tls/alias-1.c
AFAICT, from testing on cris-elf Xf from i686-darwin9 this is fixed.
It also appears fixed on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-09
11:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] wrong
code for complex division
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
So the following should fix this. Can you bootstrap/test
--- Comment #15 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-09
11:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] wrong
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
So the following should fix this. Can you bootstrap/test this?
Oh, I forgot to say test.cxx
--- Comment #16 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-09
11:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] wrong
The following might be a regression:
Executing on host: /home/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/g++ -shared-libgcc -B/ho=
me/dave/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc -nostdinc
--- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-09
00:35 ---
Subject: Re: Generated constructors and destructors get
wrong debug location when a typedef uses a forward declaration of
the type before the definition
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010, danglin
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-07
19:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] wrong
code for complex division
Attached .ii.
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-07
19:59 ---
Created
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-07
20:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] wrong code for complex division
;; x.1 = std::operator/double (D.24646, x.1); [return slot optimization]
Isn't this fixed on trunk since
2010-07-26 Richard
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-07
21:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] wrong code for complex division
Btw, does this only happen at -O0? If you adjust the testcase like
No, it also fails at -O2 where the entire computation is inline
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-07
21:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] wrong code for complex division
On i?86-linux I see
bb 2:
g (x);
D.24518 = 1.0e+0;
x = std::operator/double (D.24518, x);
g (x);
so no return-slot
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-07
21:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] wrong code for complex division
So the following should fix this. Can you bootstrap/test this?
Testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44632
--- Comment #57 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-05
19:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
If you could experiment with passing -fdbg-cnt=bug:N to the compiler
--- Comment #67 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-05
20:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
I think initial RTL generation is fine, so it looks like my change has exposed
a latent bug. What seems to happen is that some pass
--- Comment #55 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-04
19:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
The exception is caused by get_bb_copy returning NULL. However, get_bb_copy
is not miscompiled.
The change to function.c
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-08-02
17:18 ---
Subject: Re: No rule to make target
`.deps/affinity.Plo'
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Please also show how you configured your build, and please also post the exact
--- Comment #53 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-30
15:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #51 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29 19
--- Comment #17 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-30
19:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (cc1) compiling
matmul_i1.c
I just tried the patch in comment #15 and successfully bootstrapped GCC on my
32 bit PA system (including building
--- Comment #47 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-29
15:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
--- Comment #33 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc
--- Comment #52 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-30
02:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #51 from bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-29 19
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-28
19:18 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
(cc1) compiling matmul_i1.c
Replacing stage2/stage3 version of loop-iv.o with stage1 version results
in successful compilation of matmul_i1.c
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-28
00:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Please check whether the attached patch fixes the testcase
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-25
17:13 ---
Subject: Re: miscompile with bitfield and optimization
Is endian.h available on all supported platforms?
It is not available on HP-UX.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45017
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-24
21:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault
(cc1) compiling matmul_i1.c
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Please attach preprocessed source.
Attached
--- Comment #41 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-22
14:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Testing.
With the previous versions, hash table lookups were somehow broken,
resulting in NULL
--- Comment #43 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-22
18:16 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Still same problem. I'm trying with function.c reverted to 162239.
Dave
--
http
--- Comment #44 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-22
22:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
HJ, Dave, can you retest with mainline?
Still same problem. I'm trying with function.c reverted to 162239.
I had a success
--- Comment #46 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-22
22:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
Did the failing bootstrap include the function.c fix in r162391, or was it an
earlier revision?
I believe that it did. It was done
--- Comment #37 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-21
01:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed
to bootstrap
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, bernds at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
David, here's a new patch which might fix the PA problem. Please
--- Comment #33 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-19
14:31 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
This patch (with/without the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/txt00119.txt) does not fix the
bootstrap failure
--- Comment #26 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-18
20:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
Doing a non bootstrap build, I see the following new fail:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/950605-1.c execution, -O1
f:
.PROC
--- Comment #29 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-18
21:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Revision 162270 failed to bootstrap
David, this seems to be caused by a different revision. The postreload pass
we're discussing here makes no changes to RTL
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-11
15:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-11
16:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
The above testcase worked? Not the pr35258.c, but the one I gave, with
the int aligned(1)? The difference on the 4.5 branch
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-11
22:22 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c execution test
The above testcase doesn't work with 4.5 and I doubt it ever worked on
PA. The pointer passed to foo is used as is. It's only
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-10
23:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35258.c
execution test
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
I get for all memory accesses an alignment of 8 at expansion time
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-07-02
15:50 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-pta-10.c scan-ipa-dump
pta ESCAPED = { }
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
You need the following additional patch
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-06-30
14:06 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-pta-10.c scan-ipa-dump pta ESCAPED = { }
Can you, instead of
/* Copied from va-pa.h, but we probably don't need to align to
word size, since we
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-06-15
13:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20031015-1.c (internal compiler error)
Attached .i.
Dave
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-06-15
13
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-29
15:11 ---
Subject: Re: abi docs say that hppa-linux defaults to libgcc_s.so.2
Dave, when did the hppa-linux so version change from 2 to 4?
I'd like to document that, rather than just say it's always 1 or 4
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-27
16:06 ---
Subject: Re: abi docs say that hppa-linux defaults to libgcc_s.so.2
Dave, when did the hppa-linux so version change from 2 to 4?
I'd like to document that, rather than just say it's always 1 or 4
Oops
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-24
18:11 ---
Subject: Re: Multiplying -1 by NaN is not valid.
On Mon, 24 May 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Well - GCC has fallback expansions for some sign-related instructions by doing
bit-fiddling
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-11
12:05 ---
Subject: Re: genautomata: undeclared unit or reservation `cortex_a9_}ult'
Is this still an issue ? My armv5te box was bootstrapping without the issue
you
mention in cortex-a9.md and there is a test
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-08
21:43 ---
Subject: Re: xgcc: error trying to exec
'/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./prev-gcc/gnat1': execv: Not e
Not enough space is an error from the OS.
Yes, but I saw this on two separate machines, one with 8 GB
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-07
13:29 ---
Subject: Re: xgcc: error trying to exec
'/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./prev-gcc/gnat1': execv: Not e
Not enough space is an error from the OS.
Yes, but I saw this on two separate machines, one with 8 GB
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-04
00:27 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-pta-10.c
scan-ipa-dump pta ESCAPED = { }
Attached preprocessed source.
Dave
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-04
00:27
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-05-02
13:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20031015-1.c (internal compiler error)
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
Can you bisect the few commits
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-04-30
15:54 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/reduction3.f90
Does this still fail ? Recent testresults don't show this failure in
libgomp.
It's not failing on trunk. Will recheck 4.4 and 4.5.
Dave
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-04-22
13:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20031015-1.c (internal
compiler error)
The same failures are present on trunk with --enable-checking=release.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-04-20
22:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20031015-1.c (internal
compiler error)
Can you bisect the few commits that happened inbetween? Like reverting
the fixes for PRs 43679 and/or 43661
--- Comment #16 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-04-15
13:44 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR19872.f execution test;
formatted read - wrong numbers
(In reply to comment #12)
A git bisect between the ranges suggested by Dave in Comment #6
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-04-14
18:53 ---
Subject: Re: ld: Unsatisfied symbol start in file c_lto_20091216-1_0.o
Dave, do you have a patch for this? I see it on ia64 hpux too.
Something like this works for hppa*--hpux* using gas:
Index
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-04-14
20:05 ---
Subject: Re: ld: Unsatisfied symbol start in file c_lto_20091216-1_0.o
I wonder if using
asm (.globl start);
asm (start: nop);
Would work for everyone? I am going to try that on my nightly HP-UX
--- Comment #14 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-04-12
16:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5/4.6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR19872.f execution test;
formatted read - wrong numbers
A git bisect between the ranges suggested by Dave in Comment #6, gave me
r149470
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-04-09
20:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR19872.f execution test;
formatted read - wrong numbers
Can you also do the following: Using the 4.4 or 4.5 binary with the 4.5 or 4.4
libgfortran. I
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-04-01
20:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR19872.f execution test;
formatted read - wrong numbers
Can you also do the following: Using the 4.4 or 4.5 binary with the 4.5 or 4.4
libgfortran. I
--- Comment #46 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-03-21
14:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Undefined symbol: vtable for
__cxxabiv1::__vmi_class_type_info
Can anyone reconfirm this bug for GCC 4.4 and/or GCC 4.5?
I think this bug should be closed. While
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-03-18
20:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE in stage1 compiling __bswapdi2
Does it work now?
Full regression test isn't complete. Bootstrap was successful and no
regressions were observed in gcc and acats tests
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-03-17
15:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE in stage1 compiling
__bswapdi2
Can you attach preprocessed source?
Attached.
Dave
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-03-17
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-03-17
18:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE in stage1 compiling __bswapdi2
var-tracking expects that if frame_pointer_rtx (resp. arg_pointer_rtx,
depending on whether FRAME_POINTER_CFA_OFFSET
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-03-17
21:09 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] ICE in stage1 compiling __bswapdi2
Let's go with this patch then. Can you please regtest it?
Yes. I'll try it when I get home this evening.
Dave
--
http
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-03-08
14:00 ---
Subject: Re: ld: Unsatisfied symbol start in file c_lto_20091216-1_0.o
Patch welcome (either skipping the test or adjusting the asm)
Testing a patch with adjusted asm (uses __hpux).
Dave
--
http
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-03-08
14:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] lto-elf.c:388:10: error: 'EM_SPARC'
Created an attachment (id=20041)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20041action=view)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-02-03
19:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] pex-unix.c:589:1: internal compiler error:
output_operand
--- Comment #10 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-02-03 19:31 ---
return XVECEXP (XEXP (x, 1), 0
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-02-02
19:14 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] pex-unix.c:589:1: internal compiler error:
output_operand
rtx x = delegitimize_mem_from_attrs (orig_x);
if (GET_CODE (x) == LO_SUM
GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 1
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-02-01
18:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] pex-unix.c:589:1: internal
compiler error: output_operand
I suppose it worked at some point. Please attach preprocessed source.
Yes, it worked a few days ago
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-02-01
21:00 ---
Subject: Re: New: pex-unix.c:589:1: internal compiler error: output_operand
Breakpoint 3, output_addr_const (file=0x83fffdfd0020,
x=0x83fffdc75228) at ../../gcc/gcc/final.c:3521
3521
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-01-31
17:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/forced.C execution test
(In reply to comment #3)
The failure was introduced by my change to the libgcc_s so version.
I always wondered why we have
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-01-31
17:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/forced.C execution test
That is correct, all glibc targets must provide the current version if
libgcc_s.so. The NPTL implementation of pthread_cancel_init
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-01-24
15:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/abi/forced.C execution test
Probably related to PR42837.
The failure started before the failure of g++.dg/abi/packed1.C.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-01-19
15:38 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr42248.c compilation at -O1 and
above
Can you check if the patch that introduced the testcase is responsible for the
failure?
Will do.
Dave
--
http
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-01-19
20:51 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr42248.c compilation at -O1 and
above
Can you check if the patch that introduced the testcase is responsible for the
failure?
It's not.
Dave
--
http
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-01-19
21:00 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr42248.c compilation at -O1 and
above
Can you check if the patch that introduced the testcase is responsible for
the
failure?
It's not.
Testcase
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-07
16:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Internal error compiling fortran/intrinsic.c
Will check 4.4 with checking enabled.
4.4.3 builds with checking enabled:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-12
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-04
18:22 ---
Subject: Re: os_defines.h:60:1: error: expected '{' before
'_GLIBCXX_PSEUDO_VISIBILITY'
JDA, I don't have headers and libs to test a hpux cross-compiler, could you
test the patch?
I'll test tonight
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-04
23:39 ---
Subject: Re: os_defines.h:60:1: error: expected '{'
before '_GLIBCXX_PSEUDO_VISIBILITY'
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009, davek at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #8 from davek at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-04
23:45 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gnat.dg/null_pointer_deref1.adb
execution test
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-03
19:30 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gnat.dg/null_pointer_deref1.adb execution test
Dave, do you happen to have a java-enabled build around? If so, could you
attach the assembly generated for libjava.lang/Array_3 since
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-03
20:58 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gnat.dg/null_pointer_deref1.adb
execution test
Attached .s from hppa-unknown-linux-gnu target.
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-03
20
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-04
03:50 ---
Subject: Re: New: os_defines.h:60:1: error: expected
'{' before '_GLIBCXX_PSEUDO_VISIBILITY'
Attached os_defines.h.
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-04
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-12-02
16:07 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] Internal error compiling fortran/intrinsic.c
Why is this a regression? Does it work with 4.4 and checking enabled?
Does it work with current trunk and release checking
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-11-18
21:51 ---
Subject: Re: lto.c:289:7: error: implicit declaration of function 'strtoll'
Is strtoll defined in some other header in hppa64-hp-hpux11.11? If it isn't, I
will start porting it to libiberty.
It's
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-11-13
14:20 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: gnat.dg/null_pointer_deref1.adb execution test
I see that it fails on HP-UX as well. That's probably because there is
something missing in the fallback routines in config/pa, namely
1 - 100 of 1003 matches
Mail list logo
