https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
--- Comment #41 from hainque at adacore dot com ---
> On 2 Jan 2019, at 23:33, joseph at codesourcery dot com
> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=448
>
> --- Comment #40 from joseph at codesourcer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
--- Comment #15 from hainque at adacore dot com ---
And thanks Rainer for having confirmed that it resolves
the problem for you as well.
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 23:54 , hainque at adacore dot com
> <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
--- Comment #14 from hainque at adacore dot com ---
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 21:16 , rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de
> <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
--- Comment #4 from hainque at adacore dot com ---
Thanks again for your help on this Segher!
> On Jan 27, 2017, at 01:54 , segher at gcc dot gnu.org
> <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53271
--- Comment #4 from hainque at adacore dot com hainque at adacore dot com
2012-05-09 08:52:01 UTC ---
On May 9, 2012, at 10:18 , amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com 2012-05-09 08:18:09
UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #13 from hainque at adacore dot com hainque at adacore dot com
2010-11-30 17:49:20 UTC ---
dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Did something change in GCC that now generates line 0 debug
information?
For Ada cases, we had mixups
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46655
--- Comment #8 from hainque at adacore dot com hainque at adacore dot com
2010-11-29 09:17:03 UTC ---
dje at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Has anyone reported this AIX assembler behavior to IBM? It would be
much more effective coming from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
--- Comment #21 from hainque at adacore dot com hainque at adacore dot com
2010-10-01 22:11:52 UTC ---
hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
We might be missing some code in inliner that passes the fact that
the label is user label...
I don't yet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
--- Comment #17 from hainque at adacore dot com hainque at adacore dot com
2010-09-30 09:23:25 UTC ---
ro at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Eric, Olivier,
could you please have a look at Jan's question in Comment #6? This
bug currently breaks Ada
--- Comment #21 from hainque at adacore dot com 2010-08-16 07:42 ---
Subject: Re: pthread_default_stacksize_np failed.
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
Because of these issues, I have decided to revert the change on the
branches (probably tomorrow). I will also try
--- Comment #16 from hainque at adacore dot com 2010-08-13 10:14 ---
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 in final executables
--- Comment #11 from hainque at adacore dot com 2010-08-12 14:14 ---
Subject: Re: pthread_default_stacksize_np failed.
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
The function is present in libc.sl on my PA HPUX 11.00 system.
Hmm, not here. There are many more pthread_ entries
--- Comment #12 from hainque at adacore dot com 2010-08-12 14:18 ---
Subject: Re: pthread_default_stacksize_np failed.
[Thanks for your prompt feebdack Dave :-)]
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
It appears pthread_default_stacksize_np was added to libc in PHCO_30531
--- Comment #13 from hainque at adacore dot com 2010-08-12 14:24 ---
Subject: Re: pthread_default_stacksize_np failed.
hainque at adacore dot com wrote:
PHCO_29955 seems relevant as well
This was for 11.11. For 11.00, this is part of PHCO_29956.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #17 from hainque at adacore dot com 2009-09-28 22:07 ---
I checked with gcc version 4.5.0 20090928 (experimental) [trunk revision
152246] (GCC).
I didn't test 4.4 but the patch should apply there too, no?
Yes, and I just applied it. This is not a fullproof resolution
--- Comment #6 from hainque at adacore dot com 2007-12-19 08:30 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Even with -O0 -g gcc optimizes a goto
away and I cannot debug
Hi Steven,
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
xf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg01789.html
I
--- Comment #7 from hainque at adacore dot com 2007-12-19 10:06 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Even with -O0 -g gcc optimizes a goto
away and I cannot debug
Olivier Hainque wrote:
We can definitely resubmit the current version we have (I copied the
author). Thanks
--- Comment #9 from hainque at adacore dot com 2007-12-07 11:08 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.3 regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/release_unc_maxalign.adb
execution test
Hello,
andreasmeier80 at gmx dot de wrote:
gnat.dg/release_unc_maxalign.adb execution test fails for me since
20.11.2007
--- Comment #6 from hainque at adacore dot com 2007-11-26 12:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/release_unc_maxalign.adb execution
test
pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
Have you tried your @gcc.gnu.org account?
Humm, no. I tried the login/password combination sent
--- Comment #3 from hainque at adacore dot com 2007-11-25 08:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/release_unc_maxalign.adb execution
test
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from hainque at adacore dot com 2007-11-23 17:11 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.3 regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/release_unc_maxalign.adb
execution test
andreasmeier80 at gmx dot de wrote:
gnat.dg/release_unc_maxalign.adb execution test fails for me since
20.11.2007
--- Comment #17 from hainque at adacore dot com 2006-01-17 16:29 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: a85013b: *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer:
0x00062a00 ***
John David Anglin wrote:
As I understand the situation, fixing the above problem is quite involved.
Indeed. I have dug
--- Comment #8 from hainque at adacore dot com 2006-01-03 16:25 ---
Subject: Re: FAIL: a85013b: *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer:
0x00062a00 ***
charlet at adacore dot com wrote:
Hmm, so that means that 16 is bigger than Standard'Maximum_Alignment...
Yes, the latter
--- Additional Comments From hainque at adacore dot com 2005-07-06 13:30
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
This patch fixed the problem I was having, thanks.
:) Thanks
--- Additional Comments From hainque at adacore dot com 2005-07-06 14:50
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
Olivier Hainque wrote:
I'll test on our internal suite and followup.
Went fine on x86-linux, committing
--- Additional Comments From hainque at adacore dot com 2005-07-05 14:08
---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix when
unwind.h is not installed
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Hmm, so it means that there is no way for a compiler front-end
26 matches
Mail list logo
