https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50351
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60244
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57119
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #36 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, I guess that you missed to reconfigure gcc. By checking current source
is the include of ftw.h guarded by HAVE_FTW_H check, which get defined by
configure if header is found.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #37 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I confirm that in libgcc we still have an issue ...
Could you please make a new report for libgcc's libgcov-util.c for it.
Thanks in advance
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #30 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, this patch slipped under my radar. It would be good if you - Rainer -
would have pinged on it. As far as I recalled I awaited at that time a full
patch by Rong on this subject
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #27 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #26)
Instead of the #undef mkdir you'd IMHO better just use (mkdir) (filename)
in the second case.
Anyway, if you've posted your patch to gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58327
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #33 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Feb 10 14:14:58 2015
New Revision: 220584
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220584root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-10 Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61889
--- Comment #32 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Feb 10 14:13:13 2015
New Revision: 220582
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220582root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-10 Rainer Emrich rai...@emrich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65390
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I agree that we change it to
#define __GTHR_W32_InterlockedCompareExchange InterlockedCompareExchange
not sure if we actually should error out here at all. We might want to remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56636
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to David from comment #8)
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #7)
The first code block in comment #6 is what is in the code now. As you can
see, it already has the #define
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17729
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61207
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
well, it might be same issue, but on x64 target the testcase of comment #6
works without issues.
As SRA seems to be involved here, the changes on trunk for DOM might be the
solution.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65238
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65323
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52579
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I agree that suggested patch changes here behavior on non LP64 targets.
Nevertheless it would be something to live by until we reach stage 1 to address
this more accurate.
To us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
--- Comment #17 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Mar 25 15:05:02 2015
New Revision: 221665
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221665root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libgomp/64972
* oacc-parallel.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65560
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65564
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65561
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65564
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As more I look as more I guess it is related to recent pic-code changes in
i386.c for Darwin.
I will check at what places we now assume that for PIC (especially for UNSPEC
UNSPEC_PCREL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65568
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Issue is related to -fms-extensions. This option is for mingw targets on by
default. By the following patch issue in testsuite gets solved (it makes sense
to apply this patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65562
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65573
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65572
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65566
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65523
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15212
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65277
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65130
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I confirm that bug is fixed with that patch. Only for the case that trying to
link with objects created with prior revision will still fail. Later might be
acceptable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61916
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timothygu99
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65277
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
221040(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #1)
It is caused by r214422
No, I think this started with r221040.
Yes, it got shown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Feb 27 13:19:38 2015
New Revision: 221059
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221059root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65038
* config.in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35330
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65216
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||madars+gccbug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Well, it looked like the same issue by inspection dumps, as folding issue
happens in reassoc-pass. Of course it might be that forward-prop patch is the
actual issue.
I noticed for -O3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57982
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The problem here is the use of weak on pe-coff. The change you see on gcc is
just addressing the fact that for 64-bit the weak symbol never can get 0 due
relocation-limitations.
We try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35330
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Feb 27 10:44:43 2015
New Revision: 221053
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221053root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-27 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Feb 27 12:05:02 2015
New Revision: 221055
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221055root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65038
* config.in: Regenerated
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65288
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63608
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 25 13:36:00 2015
New Revision: 220966
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220966root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-25 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
Kai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 25 13:42:12 2015
New Revision: 220967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220967root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/61917
* gcc.dg/vect/vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 25 14:12:46 2015
New Revision: 220968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220968root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-25 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Tested patch posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01502.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
Well, can someone overwrite dllimport symbol by different definition?
If not, it is a bug of decl_binds_to_current_def_p to return false here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65204
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 25 16:28:28 2015
New Revision: 220981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220981root=gccview=rev
Log:
Precommit code-change of patch by Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 25 16:44:26 2015
New Revision: 220982
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220982root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/64212
* symtab.c (symtab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hmm, just retested it for gcc's trunk. Can't reproduce it. I will retest with
current trunk, I might have a different patch in tree, which makes the
difference here.
Additionally
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64212
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 25 16:46:34 2015
New Revision: 220983
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220983root=gccview=rev
Log:
Merged from mainline
PR target/64212
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #14 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #12)
Hmm, just retested it for gcc's trunk. Can't reproduce it. I will retest
with current trunk, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #19 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 25 18:21:37 2015
New Revision: 220987
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220987root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/61917
* tree-vect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #17 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just posted a fix. For the 4.9 branch I could finally reproduce this error.
It is caused by the PHI-check for a vector-constant, which obviously has no
valid statment ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 25 18:20:34 2015
New Revision: 220986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220986root=gccview=rev
Log:
2015-02-25 Kai Tietz kti...@redhat.com
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
--- Comment #20 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
HJ: Does recent patch fixes issue for you too?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65130
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65130
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ktietz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61917
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65127
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35330
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Suggested patch send at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-02/msg01615.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65038
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43701
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35330
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
issue seems to be that in declare_weak we don't check that DECL is actually
either a function, or a variable declaration.
Fix would be to add an error-message in declare_weak
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65216
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65216
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64162
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
By testing on c++-delayed-folding branch I noticed that gcc doesn't optimize
issues as tested in 'c-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64641
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47308
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39947
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just as note: This issue got partial addressed for 4.8 gcc for cross-compiler
version. We place bitness-version into specific lib folder for bitness.
Just for native mode - for being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Rainer: does following patch works for you?
Index: oacc-parallel.c
===
--- oacc-parallel.c(Revision 221640)
+++ oacc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ok, I am fine. So patch should be something like:
Index: oacc-parallel.c
===
--- oacc-parallel.c(Revision 221640
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.3
Known
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64972
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65581
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8270
--- Comment #57 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to doug mcilroy from comment #56)
(In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #55)
Comment #55 overlooks the Standard's translation phase 1, which replaces an
implementation-defined
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65867
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does the following patch fixes your problem?
Index: lto-wrapper.c
===
--- lto-wrapper.c (Revision 69)
+++ lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #22 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I will be able to test this tomorrow (or this evening) for a linux bootstrap.
Patch tested is:
Index: lto-wrapper.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #31 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23)
The patch looks pretty obvious to me - though I wonder if archives still
work on x86_64-linux after it (or rather I wonder how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #35 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon May 4 10:16:23 2015
New Revision: 222759
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222759root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR target/65559
* lto-wrapper.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
--- Comment #36 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon May 4 10:23:55 2015
New Revision: 222761
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222761root=gccview=rev
Log:
Backmerge from trunk.
PR lto/65559
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559
Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
701 - 800 of 844 matches
Mail list logo