https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #15 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 58258
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58258=edit
Diff of generated assembly without and with changes from PR99531
I have generated a diff that shows the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I can even confirm that reverting a7acb6dca941db2b1c135107dac3a34a20650d5c
(with some minor merge adjustments) on current git master fixes the problem for
me.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #12 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #11)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #10)
> >
> > Yes, definitely. Will take a little longer though as I need to fix my setup
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #8)
> Adrian, if you have the means, can you bisect it to pinpoint the commit
> where this error starts occuring?
Yes, definitely. Will take a little longer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 58245
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58245=edit
Preprocessed source from building read-vorbis.c with gcc-11 and -fverbose-asm
(In reply to Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 58244
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58244=edit
Preprocessed source from building read-vorbis.c with gcc-14 and -fverbose-asm
(In reply to Oleg Endo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
It will succeed, if any of the following optimizations are removed:
-fcrossjumping
-finline-functions
-finline-small-functions
-freorder-blocks-algorithm=stc
-ftree-pre
-ftree-tail-merge
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115148
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 58234
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58234=edit
Preprocessed source from building read-vorbis.c with gcc-14
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: sh*-*-*
Since gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111898
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Looks like that the issue no longer shows and postgresql-16 builds fine [1].
So, we can probably close this.
> [1]
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #128 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 57498
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57498=edit
Build log including preprocessed source for building gcc-14 (20240221) natively
with LRA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #127 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #126)
> I'm retesting a native build with LRA enabled by default now and report back.
>
> If that works, I will try to build and boot a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #126 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I'm retesting a native build with LRA enabled by default now and report back.
If that works, I will try to build and boot a kernel.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113553
--- Comment #14 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
The posix_spawn() issue on sparc64 is explained in more detail, including a
reproducer, here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113553
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> oh look at this a memset issue on sparc glibc:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31068 .
Hmm, but this would be sparc32. Are you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113553
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Let me look that seems like an unitialized variable. If it is obvious one, I
> will apply a patch.
Thanks. I was actually researching the above
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113553
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #1)
> The build works for me just fine on sparc-sun-solaris2.11.
>
> I've also fired one off on sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu which worked just as
> well.
> It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112836
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I tried this patch but it does not address the issue with posix_spawn that I am
seeing.
Trying to build gcc from git on Linux sparc64 with glibc 2.37 with the
following configuration:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87723
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #7)
> (In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> > As far as upstream is concerned, < 11 is EOL, but if you file a bug on the
> > suse side,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87723
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6)
> As far as upstream is concerned, < 11 is EOL, but if you file a bug on the
> suse side, maybe they'd be willing to do it.
That's what I'm already doing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87723
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glaubitz at physik dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This could still be a bug in LLVM too.
>
> Without much more information, it is hard to decide.
I fully agree. I filed this bug report to broaden
/issues/72279
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com, segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> > > This PR is for the sysv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> This PR is for the sysv ABI, while most discussion was about the "ELFv1" ABI.
Doesn't the subject clearly mention "powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu"?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5)
> (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> > See my previous comment?
> >
> > You can either write better code, or use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> See my previous comment?
>
> You can either write better code, or use -mcmodel=large or similar, accepting
> the not-so-stellar generated code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108208
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glaubitz at physik dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113140
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 56940
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56940=edit
Preprocessed source from building qt6-declarative with gcc-13
Sure, see attached.
?pkg=qt6-dec
larative=sparc64=6.6.1%2Bdfsg-1=1702262
113=0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #38 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #37)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #32)
> > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #31)
> > > Ah, I forgot to add -O1 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877
--- Comment #22 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #21)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #20)
> > I don't think this is a duplicate. This one is supposed to be without -mlra.
>
> All
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877
--- Comment #20 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #19)
> Dup of bug 83464.
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 83464 ***
I don't think this is a duplicate. This one is supposed to be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111001
--- Comment #16 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #15)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #10)
> >
> > Do we need anything else before the fix can be merged?
>
> No, should be fine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111001
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #9)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #8)
> >
> > I built gcc-13 natively with the patch applied with a full bootstrap
> > including
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111001
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #7)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5)
> >
> > I can confirm that this patch fixes the build of e2fsprogs with gcc-13 for
> > me.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111892
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111001
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
*** Bug 111892 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111001
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4)
> Created attachment 56164 [details]
> sh_pr11001_fix.patch
>
> Can you please try this patch? It should solve the problem, but not sure if
> there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111892
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5)
> Adrian, can you please give it another go with the patch I've posted in PR
> 111001 ?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56164
I'll
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org, ysato at users dot
sourceforge.jp
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111892
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> Is that on a native sh system or are you cross-compiling? From which host?
Yes, building on a native system (SH7785LCR) running Debian unstable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101177
--- Comment #12 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #11)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4)
> > > (In reply to Harold Gutch from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #12)
> > This is still present in gcc-13, I just ran into it while cross-building the
> > Haskell compiler GHC for sh4:
> >
>
> Have you tried using the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101177
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
@Segher: In case it's trivial to fix, could you get this fixed or revert the
patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111892
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Full source code tree available here:
https://people.debian.org/~glaubitz/e2fsprogs-5VkWTa.tgz
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org, ysato at users dot
sourceforge.jp
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101177
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glaubitz at physik dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81426
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 56123
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56123=edit
Preprocessed source from building GHC with gcc-13
This is still present in gcc-13, I just ran into it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93090
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> Can this be closed now?
Yes.
I think there is still some money in the Bountysource campaign, not sure what
will happen with it. I'll contact them
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9)
> > Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error.
> > 0x010ceda4 in mdb_node_add (mc=0x14327b8, indx=,
> > key=0x7fee0a0,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> Can anyone print the value of mp in the debugger?
glaubitz@gcc202:~/openldap/tests$ gdb --args
/home/glaubitz/openldap/servers/slapd/slapd -Ta -d 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 53818
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53818=edit
Pre-processed source of unmodified mdb.c (gzip-compressed)
Here's the preprocessed source for mdb.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> Note that the fields are marked volatile in the source:
>
> union {
> struct {
>volatile indx_t pb_lower;
>volatile indx_t pb_upper;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107498
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 53814
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53814=edit
Pre-processed source of mdb.c (gzip-compressed)
Source code file in OpenLDAP git tree is
?id=9916
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org, jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #20 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
JIT definitely works with 12 on m68k again - and probably 13. So, the title is
misleading.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88200
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
This has been fixed on 12 and presumably also on 13. So, the title is
misleading.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #21 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
This issue is fixed in 12 and presumably also in version 13. So the title is
misleading.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65884
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #4)
> (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 52765 [details]
> > ia64-disable-sdata-by-default.patch
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65884
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #3)
> Created attachment 52765 [details]
> ia64-disable-sdata-by-default.patch
>
> We can try a radical thing: make -mno-sdata a default:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65884
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
The problem is still present in gcc-12:
/usr/bin/time -v /home/glaubitz/gcc-12-new/gcc-12-12-20220319/build/gcc/xg++
-B/home/glaubitz/gcc-12-new/gcc-12-12-20220319/build/gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #19 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #18)
> The git snapshot 20220130 from the gcc-11 branch still fails. However, since
> Matthias just uploaded 20220222, I can try that as well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #18 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #17)
> > Just as a heads-up: This has been fixed for me with gcc-12. I can
> > successfully bootstrap Ada in gcc-12 with gnat-10.
>
> Great. What about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #16 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Just as a heads-up: This has been fixed for me with gcc-12. I can successfully
bootstrap Ada in gcc-12 with gnat-10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104189
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10)
> Applied on the mainline only since not appropriate for release branches.
OK, thanks! I will ask Matthias for including the patch in gcc-11 on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104189
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Any updates on this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104189
--- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
FWIW, I also asked David Miller regarding the register preservation and here is
his answer:
> The full 64-bit registers of the out and global registers are saved at trap
> time.
> But only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104189
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5)
> > The function init_sparc64_elf_hwcap(void) [1] unconditionally enables it
> > with:
> >
> > cap |= (AV_SPARC_MUL32 | AV_SPARC_DIV32 |
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104189
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #3)
> I think that should be the case given that the 32-bit SPARC port in Debian
> has been based on the SPARCV8+ baseline since 2007 [1].
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104189
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #2)
> Created attachment 52272 [details]
> Tentative fix
Thanks a lot for the quick fix.
> This requires that the kernel preserves the full 64-bit
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org, jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com,
matorola at gmail dot com
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98504
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #12)
> But, of course, you shouldn't have to. A "make install" should put fmt.gox
> in the right place by default. I don't know why you are seeing a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98504
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #10)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > Any update on the status on current trunk?
>
> I can give it a try later this week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98504
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> Any update on the status on current trunk?
I can give it a try later this week. We have a new shiny ia64 porterbox in
Debian now :-).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102588
--- Comment #1 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 51545
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51545=edit
Preprocessed source.
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org, jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com,
matorola at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: sparc64-*-*-*
Trying to build openorienteering-mapper on sparc64 fails on Debian unstable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83143
--- Comment #15 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Giulio Benetti from comment #14)
> This bug still shows up in gcc version 9.x and 11.x. But not on version 10.x
> I've found the simple work-around to disable the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93090
--- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #4)
> FWIW there's also:
> https://github.com/antoyo/rustc_codegen_gcc
> which isn't a GCC Rust frontend per se, but uses libgccjit to embed GCC as a
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63368
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
FWIW, it seems the situation seems to be the same on 32-bit SPARC:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D98575#2947973
So, I guess the suggested solution would be the one from Comment 7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #32 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #31)
> Ah, I forgot to add -O1 and -fno-cross-jumping to CFLAGS.
>
> Are the builtin_traps() optimized out for -O2?
>
> I'm building with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #31 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #30)
> Created attachment 50717 [details]
> Build log for ruby 2.5 with Oleg's patch applied
Ah, I forgot to add -O1 and -fno-cross-jumping
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #55 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to abebeos from comment #54)
> Now, there is a strange tendency within this project to completely ignore my
> work on this issue/bounty and my person, see e.g. here:
You have no claim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #30 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Created attachment 50717
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50717=edit
Build log for ruby 2.5 with Oleg's patch applied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #29 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #28)
> Adrian, could please apply the following patch to the original string.c file
> and try building & running the whole thing again with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93808
--- Comment #28 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #27)
> Adrian, any results? (I just assume GCC 11 and trunk are affected now)
Not yet. I'll try to remember it this weekend.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98504
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glaubitz at physik dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93090
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
It seems that the gccrs frontend is now sponsored by two companies, so I think
it's fine to stop the Bountysource campaign [1] and move the money to other
Bountysource campaigns.
> [1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Arnaud Charlet from comment #9)
> The problem is somehow specific to m68k, for some unknown reason. There is
> nothing target specific in the change, no assumption is made on the
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Arnaud Charlet from comment #7)
> In other words, the bisect result isn't very useful here and I'd recommend
> investigating this change from scratch, getting a useful backtrace from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #5)
> My git bisect landed on this commit too.
I just pinged Justin again. He unfortunately doesn't seem to have a Bugzilla
account, so we can't add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98511
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> dup
>
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 98510 ***
Odd, I even searched for the error message before reporting.
Reporter: glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de
CC: cmang at google dot com, ian at airs dot com, jrtc27 at
jrtc27 dot com,
matorola at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Building trunk on Linux/sparc64 with Go enabled fails with:
libtool: compile: /<>/buil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #14 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
Quick update. The bug actually occurs with "--disable-bootstrap" which is how
Matthias Klose configures gcc when building the gcc-snapshot package. Removing
the configure flag makes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #13 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> On 12/30/20 10:30 AM, glaubitz at physik dot fu-berlin.de wrote:
> > Is that a native bootstrap on qemu with "jit" enabled?
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #11 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #10)
> So if that bisection is accurate, the only way this could be failing would
> be if something with a deprecated attribute is being used.
>
> Maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95381
--- Comment #9 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I have bisected this now and it turns out, the regression was introduced by:
commit eede1a6bf3a4f33fa5afef9e4dfc80c4dd89eeb3
Author: Nick Clifton
Date: Mon Jun 18 10:39:01 2018 +
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
This regression was introduced by:
commit d7e20130650fb46d71e0403652e4e07bc14f9775 (refs/bisect/bad)
Author: Justin Squirek
Date: Mon Aug 10 12:05:07 2020 -0400
[Ada] Reimplementation of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98341
--- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
I have started to bisect this now. aa80d0650ce612d88a62d072b63c2523d547fca8 is
still good while HEAD is broken.
It will take a while until I have a result as I have to perform this bisecting
on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98382
--- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #2)
> Are you sure about the "recently"? I get ICEs with crosses based on
> gcc-11-20201213, gcc-10.2.0, gcc-10.1.0, and gcc-9-20201218 (so pre-CC0
>
1 - 100 of 504 matches
Mail list logo
