https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97864
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.5
--- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97864
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #13)
> And the backtrace is identical, too. It's a duplicated of
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97768
OK - so I imagine Jakub will back port
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97864
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
do you see this on mainline too?
(I do not - but building a 10.x debug compiler at present)
-- the trick will be to figure out what fortran patch(es) have apparently fixed
this on mainline.
There doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97864
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
I would not expect anything to have changed with 10.2 (it's a released version)
unless Homebrew were to back port something.
Are you able to test with 'master' (i.e. the development version for GCC-11)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97864
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Brad Richardson from comment #6)
> I recently updated to Big Sur, and have xcode version 12.2, but this
> initially occurred on Catalina. I don't know exactly which version of xcode
> was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #24 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #22)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #16)
> > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > > > (In reply to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97864
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #22 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
>
>
> > clang:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #21 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #16)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
> (4) I checked that on my system there is an older version of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #16)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
> - #if defined( AIX_PHYSADR_T_CHECK )
> - typedef struct
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #16)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
> clang: error: argument unused during compilation: '-no-pie'
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #17)
> Iain, as I wrote below your changes seem not sufficient, I will recheck when
> I build your branch with gmp/mpfr/mpc built with dynamic_lookup, but it
> seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #14)
> If there is a git branch or so, I could also test it on my system with our
> code whether this works as expected.
Here you go - this is config.{sub, guess},
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #12)
> config.sub and config.guess are imported, unmodified, from upstream
> config.git.
thanks I will try to do that and test it over the next days (I've
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 49581
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49581=edit
regenerated files
the second patch is all the regenerated files .. much larger :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97871
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97871
--- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1)
> Started with r11-4927. Iain, I think the assert should go:
>
> --- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
> @@ -13536,7 +13536,6 @@ cp_parser_declaration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #4)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3)
> > I didn't have x86 Big Sur until the weekend - still working through things.
> > 1/
> >
> > The change you have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #6)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> > I bootstrapped several times (without using MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET) and
> > have been looking into other issues.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
I bootstrapped several times (without using MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET) and have
been looking into other issues.
Note that the libgfortran directory throws up a lot of warnings when
'autoreconf'ed' so maybe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97865
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 77404, which changed state.
Bug 77404 Summary: Add Wobjc-root-class
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77404
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77404
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
fixed for GCC-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77404
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137
--- Comment #37 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Avi Kivity from comment #36)
> A reminder that coroutines are crippled without this fixed, as it is
> standard practice these days to use sanitizers.
Although I have taken the PR, please don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77404
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |iains at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97757
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97757
Bug ID: 97757
Summary: [11 Regression] fortran save_6.f90 fails with a segv
for -flto -O >= 2
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> I added xfail-if for powerpc-darwin (8,9, 10 and 11).
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-November/336720.html
>
> Since i don't think I will have time
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #14)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #13)
> > If we could get in touch with an actual lawyer to review which laws
> > specifically are getting in the way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
I added xfail-if for powerpc-darwin (8,9, 10 and 11).
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-November/336720.html
Since i don't think I will have time this cycle to implement it (there are much
more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #11)
> Is there a patch or WIP somewhere I can try out or attempt to bring forwards?
I need to bring forward my patches to the latest master, will post a link here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97666
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97666
Bug ID: 97666
Summary: [11 Regression] bootstrap fail for powerpc-darwin
while building libgfortran after r11-4485
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96504
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> __builtin_coro_resume and __builtin_coro_destroy delete the memory.
> Everything goes downhill after it.
thanks for the analysis - I will hopefully take a look later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95519
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> On AVX or AVX512 machines, I got
(I test on AVX and AVX512 machines without seeing this)
What version of glibc do you have?
this might be a dup of PR96504
(r11-1673
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452
--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Ledger from comment #4)
> @Iain Sandoe
> In terms of the standard do you think this is technically undefined
> behaviour?
no, AFAICT, it's just a regular bug in the implementation.
(it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97438
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to David Ledger from comment #2)
> I'm happy to use this thread for the issue, I can just repost my link to the
> same issue here.
>
> My reporting of the issue is here, but Lewis Bakers example is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452
--- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe ---
probably a dup of 97433.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97433
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-10-16
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92719
--- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nikhil Benesch from comment #5)
> Ah, sorry, I was imprecise before. By “system gmp” I meant a gmp installed
> by Homebrew, as in `brew install gmp`.
So ... I am guessing that the default
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92719
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Nikhil Benesch from comment #3)
> For posterity, I could reproduce this issue even with the suggested
> `./configure` arguments, i.e., excluding the `--enable-multilib` option.
> I worked around
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96968
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #8)
> "iains at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs" writes:
> [...]
> > unfortunately, I've not been able to test since you applied this - currently
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97244
Iain Sandoe changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97082
--- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #2)
> Does btest pass? It's hard to see why mtest would fail if btest passes.
current results [darwin16, darwin19] are:
PASS: allocfail.sh
PASS: test_elf_32
PASS:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96968
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andrea Corallo from comment #6)
> I believe f5e73de00e9c853ce65333efada7409b0d00f758 should have fixed
> this.
>
> Okay to close?
unfortunately, I've not been able to test since you applied this
901 - 950 of 950 matches
Mail list logo
