http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #17 from jbeniston at gcc dot gnu.org jbeniston at gcc dot
gnu.org ---
Author: jbeniston
Date: Sun Mar 2 19:58:24 2014
New Revision: 208260
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208260root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR bootstrap/48230
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Eric Weddington eric.weddington at atmel dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Thibault North tnorth at fedoraproject dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnorth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #9 from Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 16:40:52 UTC ---
I ran git bisect for this. Here is the result:
74897bc755ddcb5ff67a91570c83e910ed950c7c is the first bad commit
commit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #10 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-25
17:30:46 UTC ---
Richard I added this to you since I think Sebastian's bisect turned up a patch
by you.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #11 from Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 18:49:46 UTC ---
Actually, Jon's patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02561.html)
fixes this one problem introduced by Richard's commit. But after
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #12 from Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 19:04:07 UTC ---
ok... breaks it, but with a syntax error (seems to have been fixed in the
meantime), not for the cc1 segfault we're looking for.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #13 from Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 19:24:24 UTC ---
Author: lekernel
Date: Fri Feb 25 19:24:20 2011
New Revision: 170502
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=170502
Log:
2011-02-25
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #14 from Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-25 19:26:31 UTC ---
This gets the C compiler to build; if C++ is enabled, this triggers the cc1
segfault above.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #6 from Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 21:03:09 UTC ---
Original/complete patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02561.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #7 from Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01 21:37:05
UTC ---
Does the patch fix things for you(In reply to comment #6)
Original/complete patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg02561.html
Does this fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #8 from Sebastien Bourdeauducq lekernel at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 22:00:24 UTC ---
After applying the above patch, the segmentation fault in cc1 is due to a stack
overflow, which is likely to originate from infinite recursion:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
Masaki MURANAKA mon...@monami-software.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22720|0 |1
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #1 from Masaki MURANAKA mon...@monami-software.com 2010-12-12
03:26:03 UTC ---
Created attachment 22719
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22719
Patch to config/lm32.[ch] (incomplete)
This issue was discussed at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46898
--- Comment #2 from Masaki MURANAKA mon...@monami-software.com 2010-12-12
03:37:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 22720
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22720
testcase after applied attachment 22719
(In reply to comment #1)
We
18 matches
Mail list logo
