https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64188
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
(1)
echo 'int main(void) { void func (void) {} func (); return 0; }'|gcc -g -x c
-;readelf -wi a.out|grep DW_AT_static_link
FAIL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61880
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60339
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
This is a non-inlined subroutine nested in an inlined subroutine, see
3.3.8.4.
OK, thanks for the pointer.
BTW master (4.9
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
Created attachment 32318
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32318action=edit
GDB test patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56974
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Description of problem:
FSF GDB HEAD internal errors on reading gcc/gnatbind using -readnow.
GDB will be changed to just make a 'complaint' as GDB must not crash
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60142
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
as in the case of the varargs x86_64 function that might need
saving xmm registers,
[...]
So, does GDB have a
disassemble
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60142
--- Comment #8 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
Typo above, the real GDB commit of the XMM registers init workaround was:
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48827
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60142
--- Comment #9 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
Confirming x86_64-linux testsuite on gdb-7.7.50.20140218-cvs has no
changes/regressions.
(Also confirming it fixes for me the Comment 0 gcc4.9 regression.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60142
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59675
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
It needs also some new #include as otherwise one may get:
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/stl_algobase.h:59:0,
from /usr/include/c++/4.8.2
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Created attachment 31570
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31570action=edit
Fix.
__replacement_assert: __builtin_printf
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
class C {
public:
void *ap,*bp;
C(int i,void *p):ap(i)
,bp(p)
{}
};
g++ -c cxxctor.C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #11 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
Similar inappropriate warning is generated for typedef-vs-variable as reported
now by Adam Jackson. Again a mistaken use cannot harm as it causes other
errors. And clang
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #8 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
Created attachment 31248
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31248action=edit
Comment 7 patch as a file
I still get both warnings, applied the patch to:
g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #31248|0 |1
: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: pmuldoon at redhat dot com, tromey at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
end iterator points nowhere, it must not be dereferenced by GDB.
(gdb) l
1
: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: pmuldoon at redhat dot com, tromey at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
(gdb) l 1
1#include vector
2int main() {
3 std::vectorint vec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59170
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Component: libstdc++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: pmuldoon at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
gdb a.out -ex 'b 11' -ex r -ex 'p it'
(gdb) p it
$3 = {ref = }
= bug
(gdb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59161
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
Tested with:
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.6.50.20131109-cvs
libstdcxx/v6/printers.py from GCC r201888 (=with PR libstdc++/53477 fix)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58663
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20131008 (experimental)
15b4: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
5b5 DW_AT_name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58663
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
#include stdlib.h
int main(void) {
char *p=malloc(1);
p[1]=1;
return 0;
}
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
#include unordered_map
#include memory
class X {
public:
int
Priority: P3
Component: debug
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
PASS: g++ (GCC) 4.7.3 20130221 (prerelease)
- it did not generate separate line info for destructors
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
class C {
int both_var;
void var_and_method() {}
void m() { int both_var, var_and_method; }
};
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.8.2 20130625 (prerelease)
FAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57709
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
It may not be exactly correct but from a practical standpoint clang has caught
my bug while not annoying me with tons of needless changes like gcc did, FYI.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC tracker for PR libc/15407:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15407
gold -static has a regression due to (new, since 2012) libc _start
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57280
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com ---
[patch update] Support .eh_frame in crt1 x86_64 glibc (PR libgcc/57280,
libc/15407)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg00775.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56502
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #29564|0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56538
Bug #: 56538
Summary: No opiton to disable slow 'lock' instr. one does not
need
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49828
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56502
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2013-03-02 18:19:42 UTC ---
FAIL: gcc-4.8.0-0.14.fc19.x86_64
FAIL: GNU C++ 4.7.3 20130221 (prerelease)
FAIL: GNU C++ 4.8.0 20130302 (experimental)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56502
Bug #: 56502
Summary: entry-value: Missing DW_AT_linkage_name for C-C++
calls
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55056
--- Comment #7 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2013-01-26 20:28:45 UTC ---
Workarounded with XFAIL for the GDB testsuite:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-01/msg00655.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55665
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-12-13 16:02:48 UTC ---
Confirming the GDB regression is fixed in the today's results, thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55665
Bug #: 55665
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Missing DW_TAG_lexical_block PC range
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55665
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-12-12 16:00:45 UTC ---
Created attachment 28936
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28936
gdb.cp/abstract-origin.cc from FSF GDB tree, for -O0 -g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55056
--- Comment #5 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-10-25 08:23:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
-Og -g0 doesn't produce debug info, so it should fail all debugger tests.
-Og -g should work.
-Og -g0 is needed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55056
Bug #: 55056
Summary: [4.8 Regression] -O0 -g missing location for register
double var
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55056
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-10-24 15:23:19 UTC ---
-Og -g0 is a total failure of everything, such as:
-Breakpoint 2, func2 () at ./gdb.base/return.c:12
-12 return -5;
-(gdb) PASS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54934
Bug #: 54934
Summary: Invalid debug/ array bounds w/-fno-range-check and
32-bit target
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54934
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-10-15 18:41:59 UTC ---
Created attachment 28451
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28451
.f source for a reproducer
Submitting it as a PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54934
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-10-15 18:47:05 UTC ---
Created attachment 28452
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28452
.S from reproducer for -m32 output fixed by hand
.S file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
Bug #: 54820
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ada: cannot find -lstdc++ since 4.8.0
20121002
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54820
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53313
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52160
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52160
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-09-16 07:10:39 UTC ---
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.4.7
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.5.4
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.6.4 20120916 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC) 4.7.2 20120916 (prerelease)
FAIL: gcc (GCC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54534
Bug #: 54534
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Missing location for unused variable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54405
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54405
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-09-06 09:05:23 UTC ---
It happened because gfortran = 4.6 uses this function and GDB cannot
reverse-step-over such jmp-only function.
(gdb) disass
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-08-12 18:37:26 UTC ---
It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data (just not wrong
data).
Also at that time location list will need to be used and currently
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54001
Bug #: 54001
Summary: GDB Regression: FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting
breakpoint at main.T.Foo
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #10 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-07-17 19:09:59 UTC ---
namespace E {
class O {};
void f (O o) {}
}
namespace F {
class O {};
void f (O fo) {}
}
E::O eo;
int main
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53879
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53879
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53948
Bug #: 53948
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Assignment line missing for -O0 -g
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53879
Bug #: 53879
Summary: new glibc: sysinfo.go:5976:68: error: expected ‘{’
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49888
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-06-13 22:09:40 UTC ---
Great, thanks!
Backport definitely not needed by me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-05-07 14:32:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
The testcase is failing because of the change from A* to struct A*?
Yes.
Is that an important distinction?
In other
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-05-07 15:00:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Would
DW_TAG_structure_type
DW_AT_declaration
DW_AT_signature sig8
be better?
I also think GDB
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53235
Bug #: 53235
Summary: [4.8 Regression] 20120504 broke -fdebug-types-section
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52271
Bug #: 52271
Summary: -fdebug-types-section crashes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: blocker
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52182
Bug #: 52182
Summary: unnamed structs/unions are supported by ISO C99
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52182
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #21 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-01-24 10:17:14 UTC ---
With r183465 it really builds for me now, thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51950
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-01-23 11:22:36 UTC ---
GDB command for the PASS/FAIL output:
gdb -nx a.out -ex 'b 6' -ex r -ex 'ptype F'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49829
--- Comment #19 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-01-24 05:14:00 UTC ---
../gcchead/configure --enable-64-bit-bfd --disable-static --enable-shared
--enable-debug --disable-sim --enable-gold --enable-plugins --disable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45682
--- Comment #7 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-01-22 16:48:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
There are still other few GDB testsuite regressions by -fdebug-types-section,
I will re-check them with this fix in, thanks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51950
Bug #: 51950
Summary: [4.6 Regression] fdebug-types-section regression for
member pointers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45682
--- Comment #6 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-01-21 17:02:36 UTC ---
Confirming it has fixed:
-XFAIL: gdb.cp/static-method.exp: info addr A::func() (PRMS gcc/45682)
+PASS: gdb.cp/static-method.exp: info addr A::func
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51695
--- Comment #5 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2012-01-04 14:20:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
they could have unwanted
side-effects (reading uninitialized memory, division by zero, producing NaNs
etc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51668
Bug #: 51668
Summary: class DW_AT_name does not match method's linkage name
prefix (char)1 vs. '\001'
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51644
Bug #: 51644
Summary: [4.7 Regression] va_list vs. warning: ‘noreturn’
function does return is not fixable
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51594
Bug #: 51594
Summary: gcov-dump: cannot find -lstdc++
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45682
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-11-30 20:46:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
Compiling the following with g++ -gdwarf-4 -o length length.cxx
[...]
aa5 DW_AT_frame_base : 1 byte block: 9c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50317
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-10-27 13:57:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
not sure if that is a gdb bug though ('p' is optimized out - does the
debug info say that 'p' is zero?). Jan, can you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
Bug #: 50806
Summary: dwarf2out crash: missing GTY?
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-10-20 10:15:27 UTC ---
OK, thanks, posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01850.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50806
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49750
--- Comment #1 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-09-28 23:44:50 UTC ---
-fdebug-types-section unidentifiable anonymous struct (PR debug/49750)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-09/msg00356.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47471
--- Comment #7 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-09-19 13:56:39 UTC ---
FYI a workaround is now checked in to FSF GDB HEAD:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-09/msg00140.html
I confirm gdb-7.3 / 7.3.1 does not have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50317
Bug #: 50317
Summary: [4.7 Regression] missing DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50299
--- Comment #3 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-09-07 10:57:36 UTC ---
27d: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_formal_parameter)
7e DW_AT_name: s
86 DW_AT_location: 2 byte block: 91 60 (DW_OP_fbreg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50299
Bug #: 50299
Summary: entryval: bigendian 32bit-64bit extension breaks
address match
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44995
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #2 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-08-11 10:41:30 UTC ---
I was searching for duplicates but I haven't found a close enough one without
knowing GCC internals.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
--- Comment #4 from Jan Kratochvil jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
2011-08-11 11:22:41 UTC ---
Thanks for a fix, FYI this is a reduced real world problem.
During backporting of
[patch] Implement core file's PID for s390* and ppc*
http
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50040
Bug #: 50040
Summary: [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] missed warning: ‘x.y’ is used
uninitialized in this function
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49985
Summary: Cannot compile on s390x
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49980
Summary: entryval: missing DW_AT_GNU_call_site_data_value for
stack-passed `double' parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49981
Summary: entryval: missing DW_AT_GNU_call_site_data_value for
Fortran parameter
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
101 - 200 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
