http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59853
--- Comment #4 from Sylvain Laperche sylvain.laperche at gmail dot com ---
I downloaded the source of GCC 4.8.2 from here[1].
I compiled it with and without --disable-nls, in both case it works fine. I
cannot reproduce the issue I encounter with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
IMO this bug should be moved to P1 as a regression on a primary platform and
the RMs should up the pressure on the maintainers to have it fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59857
--- Comment #3 from Jacky Ko xuelingko at yahoo dot com.tw ---
You are right. ulv is volatile, the typedef in the code is
typedef unsigned int volatile ulv;
I'm sorry that I didn't provide the definition.
I modify the C code as below,
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
IMHO a bug that is known for 2.5 years and unfixed shouldn't be all of sudden
P1. That doesn't mean the maintainers should ignore the bug, just that it
isn't a release blocker.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
--- Comment #6 from algrant at acm dot org ---
Here is a complete C++11 test case. The code generated for the two loads
in thread B doesn't maintain the required ordering:
...
ldrbw1, [x0]
uxtbw1, w1
adrp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*(data + f - f);
This could be undefined behavior if f is not 0 or 1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59868
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59865
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59757
Joey Ye joey.ye at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59863
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is also simply a gimplification issue. For larger arrays we initialize
the stack with an aggregate copy from the constant pool.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49423
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
IMHO a bug that is known for 2.5 years and unfixed shouldn't be all of
sudden P1. That doesn't mean the maintainers should ignore the bug, just
that it isn't a release
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59878
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59885
Bug ID: 59885
Summary: compiler issues incorrect ambiguous base class error
message
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59874
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55113
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
If double_type_node is FE dependent then it needs treatment in
tree-streamer.c:preload_common_nodes:
static void
preload_common_nodes (struct streamer_tree_cache_d *cache)
{
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59882
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59863
--- Comment #4 from Samuel Tardieu sam at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Note that clang has this bug in reverse: it unifies the arrays even when
recursive calls are possible and address escapes the defining function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59868
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59880
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 20 09:52:21 2014
New Revision: 206792
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206792root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/59880
* config/i386/i386.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59880
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Or rather -fvar-tracking-assignments. The slowness creeps in
trivially dead code : 0.37 (13%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.37 (10%) wall
0 kB ( 0%) ggc
complete
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57635
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57481
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
--- Comment #8 from algrant at acm dot org ---
I don't see how f can not be 0 or 1 here, but to make this even more clear
that there is no UB, define flag this way:
static std::atomicunsigned int flag(0);
and calculate the address this way:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59838
--- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: mpolacek
Date: Mon Jan 20 10:42:29 2014
New Revision: 206795
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206795root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR c++/59838
cp/
* cvt.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59838
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58479
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't see why do you think nobody would try to look at t[x][y][z] in the
debugger.
Anyway, I think we can do two things here. Obviously we can't give up on
cunrolling it because
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59881
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53958
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53958
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
As usual, the iteration order imposed by pre_and_rev_postorder isn't the best
one for a forward dataflow problem. Using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59860
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 20 11:01:53 2014
New Revision: 206799
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206799root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-20 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59860
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Jan 20 11:06:21 2014
New Revision: 206800
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206800root=gccview=rev
Log:
2014-01-20 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59860
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59829
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59496
--- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: iains
Date: Mon Jan 20 11:20:24 2014
New Revision: 206802
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206802root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc:
PR bootstrap/59496
*
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: larsbj at gullik dot net
Created attachment 31897
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31897action=edit
Reduced preprocessed code.
g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20140120 (experimental) as of rev 206794
When compiling the attached
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
Lars Gullik Bjønnes larsbj at gullik dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #1 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31898
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31898action=edit
pr59396.diff: Tentative patch for avr.c
PR target/59396
* config/avr/avr.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56454
Yury Gribov y.gribov at samsung dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||y.gribov at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
Martin Nowak code at dawg dot eu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||code at dawg dot eu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56454
Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31412
--- Comment #20 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems to be gone on trunk (4.9)
variable tracking : 0.01 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 0%) wall
48 kB ( 0%) ggc
var-tracking dataflow : 0.00 ( 0%) usr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59887
Bug ID: 59887
Summary: 4.6 regression (4.6.3-14+rpi1 - 4.4.7-3+rpi1)
internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
Bug ID: 59888
Summary: ld: warning: PIE disabled. Absolute addressing
(perhaps -mdynamic-no-pic) not allowed in code signed
PIE ...
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59889
Bug ID: 59889
Summary: gcj: internal compiler error: Killed: 9 (program jc1)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
Thanks for the testcase. At this point I think we need Andrew MacLeod or
Torvald Riegel to review it and assess what should happen where to fix
this (both
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59889
--- Comment #1 from Stefan stefanao at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31899
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31899action=edit
output of the portmaster -H command
Unfortunately, the entire log is too long, I put it on my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
--- Comment #3 from Lars Gullik Bjønnes larsbj at gullik dot net ---
Yes, the compiler is built with:
../gcc/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc/gcc-trunk --enable-checking=release
--enable-languages=c,c++,lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59889
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59887
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59889
--- Comment #3 from Stefan stefanao at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
'Killed' means sth killed gcc, likely you simply need more memory (also
check ulimits).
ulimit: unlimited
RAM installed: 1GB - too little?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59889
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Stefan from comment #3)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
'Killed' means sth killed gcc, likely you simply need more memory (also
check ulimits).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59878
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59865
--- Comment #2 from mib.bugzilla at gmail dot com ---
Thanks. I realized after I posted that the test case isn't definitive. Improved
test case pasted below.
Inspection of the assembly listing shows that popcnt is being checked before
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59878
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Use --with-isl=system to direct CLooG to pick up an already installed ISL,
otherwise it will use ISL 0.11.1 as bundled with CLooG
doesn't exactly suggest that using the ISL 0.11.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59890
Bug ID: 59890
Summary: var-tracking.c:val_reset segfaults
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59890
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Even with the obvious fix to val_reset
Index: gcc/var-tracking.c
===
--- gcc/var-tracking.c (revision 206808)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31412
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59889
--- Comment #5 from Stefan stefanao at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
(In reply to Stefan from comment #3)
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
'Killed' means sth killed gcc, likely you simply need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59887
--- Comment #2 from steven valsesia steven.valsesia at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
Seems to be a completely non-functional toolchain. Report a bug to where you
got it from.
Sorry but i don't understand, why
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59889
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56267
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Jan 20 15:49:39 2014
New Revision: 206834
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206834root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/56267
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay gjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Nowak from comment #3)
Is there a simple workaround until this is fixed?
None that I know of, at least if you don't want to change the sources.
As the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Even the const there isn't needed.
Anyway, the bug I think is that split_nonconstant_init_1 doesn't handle
RANGE_EXPR field_index in the if (TREE_CODE (value) == CONSTRUCTOR) case
(it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59868
--- Comment #6 from Michael Sartain mikesart at gmail dot com ---
Added -fno-var-tracking and build time dropped to 1:30.
Is this something that I should revisit when gcc 4.9 is released?
Thanks much for the help.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #5 from Martin Nowak code at dawg dot eu ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #4)
As the patch above has not been approved, it's unlikely this will ever get
fixed...
This should have a high priority, it makes LTO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59886
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31900
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31900action=edit
gcc49-pr59886.patch
Untested partial patch. I believe we want to increment the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58996
--- Comment #18 from bviyer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bviyer
Date: Mon Jan 20 17:49:22 2014
New Revision: 206846
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206846root=gccview=rev
Log:
Fix for PR other/58996.
+2014-01-20 Balaji V. Iyer
: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.9.0 20140120 (experimental) [trunk revision 206798] (GCC)
$
$ gcc-trunk -O0 small.c
small.c: In function ‘main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59891
Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59860
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 20 18:18:21 2014
New Revision: 206848
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206848root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/59860
* tree.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31412
--- Comment #22 from Kenneth Zadeck zadeck at naturalbridge dot com ---
if i had to put money on it, i would say that it is not dead, it is only
sleeping.
kenny
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59860
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Jan 20 18:19:54 2014
New Revision: 206849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=206849root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/59860
* tree.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thanks, Daniel. I'm still trying to understand what's happening here so I can
reproduce it.
libintl_textdomain is the GNU gettext implementation of the textdomain(3)
function. On my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A possible workaround is to ensure that *either* glibc provides textdomain(3)
*or* you have GNU gettext installed and do not use --disable-nls
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59892
Bug ID: 59892
Summary: out of bounds array access is misoptimized
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58116
--- Comment #4 from Andy Lutomirski luto at mit dot edu ---
Sorry -- I forgot about the recursive / threaded case.
(I keep meaning to propose something like [[non_unique_address]] to enable
optimizations like this and things zero-byte struct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59892
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The warning should be there already.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #6 from pieter.agten at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Martin Nowak from comment #5)
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #4)
As the patch above has not been approved, it's unlikely this will ever get
fixed...
This should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59892
Markus Trippelsdorf trippels at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56267
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59890
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59396
--- Comment #7 from Ian Thompson ijt5 at cornell dot edu ---
(In reply to Martin Nowak from comment #5)
This should have a high priority, it makes LTO completely unusable on AVR.
I've been building with LTO for AVR without issue. The warning is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59685
Uroš Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #14 from Dâniel Fraga fragabr at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
So I need to know which GNU/Linux distro you are using, and why it does not
provide textdomain in glibc.
Hi Jonathan:
1) I'm using a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
AC_SEARCH_LIBS(gettext, intl, [], USE_NLS=no)
seems a bit crude, as it results in this link test:
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern C
#endif
char gettext ();
int
main ()
{
return gettext
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #16)
AC_SEARCH_LIBS(gettext, intl, [], USE_NLS=no)
seems a bit crude, as it results in this link test:
It also doesn't help solve the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #18 from Dâniel Fraga fragabr at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #15)
(In reply to Dâniel Fraga from comment #14)
Thanks for the quick response, that explains the problem.
G++ finds the version in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
When I opened this PR I missed the -fshared. With it I get the linker error.
On IRC Iain Sandoe gives the following workaround:
(1) gfc -S F03_iso.f90
(2) apply the following
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56779
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes. Currently configure has a broken check for libintl that gives the wrong
result if you have GNU gettext installed as well as glibc, and we only do that
check when USE_NLS=yes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ld: warning: PIE disabled. |ld:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59888
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So, essentially, the complaint from the darwin linker is that it does not want
to see a relocation in the .const section (which is part of the text segment).
It might be argued that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59855
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
