https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #41 from Brjd ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #40)
> That came up at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600#c29.
IMHO keeping the build at RAM<=1GB would be a good benchmark. Keeping these
million-line files
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #39 from Brjd ---
Let me share what I notice in 14.1. Significant improvement in insn-emit.cc and
gimple-match.cc. This is good news.
Insn-recog.cc is much the same and needs ~ 1.6 GiB RAM. Yet, another possible
issue in the future
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90685
Brjd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brjd_epdjq36 at kygur dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
Brjd changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brjd_epdjq36 at kygur dot com
--- Comment #38
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54179
--- Comment #36 from Brjd ---
I got memory troubles with insn-recog.cc and gimple-match.cc too. Please
correct them for gcc 10-13 in the their last .5 releases, so that we can
bootstrap.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111570
--- Comment #2 from Brjd ---
Thank you and I also read this guide. My point is that the generic arch might
be possible in theory. If the gcc builds for the oldest CPU with x86_64, is it
possible that code will run on all modern CPU since their
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111570
Bug ID: 111570
Summary: -march=generic prints error
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: demangler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110408
Brjd changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110408
--- Comment #1 from Brjd ---
Test with specs file
%rename lib old_lib
*lib:
--start-group -lgcc -lc --end-group %(old_lib)
and hello.cpp
g++ hello.cpp -specs=/path-to-specs
g++-13: fatal error: specs file malformed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110408
Bug ID: 110408
Summary: gcc 13 crashes with %rename in specs
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: driver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #22 from Brjd ---
Maybe not changing now is the correct way for now since I may change it blindly
not knowing completely what I am doing. Let the developers correct it and will
include it in next releases. The compiler is excellent
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #21 from Brjd ---
Created attachment 54012
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54012=edit
i386-builtins-orig-12.2.0.cc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #20 from Brjd ---
The test gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/builtin_target.c is patched.
But gcc/config/i386/i386-builtins.cc looks like it is from another version.
I attached it as i386-builtins-orig-12.2.0.cc to compare them and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #18 from Brjd ---
Then rebuild is necessary and impending
gcc/config/i386/i386-builtins.cc for the compiler ?
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/builtin_target.c for the test ?
gcc/doc/extend.texi is not needed since I am not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #16 from Brjd ---
I mean that as I can see, your patch makes changes only to the test and not to
the compiler ? If it does not, and it changes the compiler source also, then I
have to rebuild the whole compiler to test it again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #14 from Brjd ---
Maybe it is better if we test it in the next release 12.3 or 13.1 since now the
test will be correct, ok, but when building source with the compiler, it will
not make any difference and make no problems at all?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #13 from Brjd ---
I am not sure how I can run only this patched test against the newly built gcc.
Would you post instruction how it is done. I know it can run in the build tree
when building gcc itself, but never test it against the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107553
--- Comment #5 from Brjd ---
Thank you.
Best regards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #11 from Brjd ---
Thank you.
Best regards.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #8 from Brjd ---
__get_cpuid(0): eax=0xa, ebx=0x756e6547, ecx=0x6c65746e, edx=0x49656e69
__get_cpuid(1): eax=0x106ca, ebx=0x20800, ecx=0x40e39d, edx=0xbfe9fbff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #6 from Brjd ---
glibc 2.19 on utopic 14.10
You may have already noticed it but just to make sure it may be helpful too,
this is where it crashes in the main for all 4 cases:
gcc/testsuite/g++.target/i386/mv30.C:45:
int main():
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107553
--- Comment #3 from Brjd ---
Created attachment 53845
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53845=edit
linker issue
I think you are right. It is a linker issue and has nothing to do with gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #4 from Brjd ---
I understand that this old cpu is not supported.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #3 from Brjd ---
Created attachment 53844
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53844=edit
cpuinfo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107553
--- Comment #1 from Brjd ---
I checked it and no failure reported by the same test in gcc 11.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
--- Comment #1 from Brjd ---
Maybe the error is since it is a new test appearing firstly in 12.2.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107553
Bug ID: 107553
Summary: 12.2 test fails
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: objc
Assignee:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107551
Bug ID: 107551
Summary: gcc 12.2 test fails
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee:
28 matches
Mail list logo
