https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116438
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Using libbacktrace can only address half of the problem, namely the half where
the internal_error handler of the middle-end is called directly. For the other
half, namely when a signal (e.g. out of a segfau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116698
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botc
should use |GNAT should print
|libbacktrace to print |backtraces on ICEs with bug
|backtraces on ICE with bug |box
|boxes |
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115250
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115246
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2024-09-09
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
The warning can be suppressed.
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Probably most 32-bit targets.
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
This one is indeed generic.
|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Why is that insufficient exactly? 256 is clearly not in range of My_Byte.
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116498
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
|1
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Assertions are not enabled in release builds, please try with 14.1 or 14.2.
||2024-09-09
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
check_out_of_bounds_and_warn must probably test that low_bound is an
INTEGER_CST before calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116190
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
||2024-09-09
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Yes but, contrary to what you said, declaring an array type does work:
with Ada.Strings.Unbounded; use
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
GNATprove is not part of GCC.
|
|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu |
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Fixed on mainline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116438
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
In my experience a backtrace is not sufficient to debug compiler issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114189
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115883
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Are you sure about REG_POINTER though? IIRC the PA port does rely on it for
correctness.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks Jeff! Any objection to backporting the fix onto the 14 branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Just threw this into my tester. Figure ~90 minutes to get back the cross
> results.
Thanks!
> I assume that if we go forward that you'll handle putting together a
> regression test since it's Ada source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115739
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
The fix is OK for mainline, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115630
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115666
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
I probably should have said "but nobody should write this sort of code."
|1
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Please try with newer versions, 14.x at least or else mainline.
|NEW
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-27
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Confirmed, but nobody should write this sort of things.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115608
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Jeff, this looks like an obvious fix given the comment just above the modified
code, but only a maintainer can probably assess that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115608
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Right, but Solaris does it automatically so Linux can probably mimic it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115608
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115608
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
The immediate fix is:
diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
index c17141d909a..5e34dc92210 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
@@ -1702,7 +170
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
I'll have a closer look.
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
I'll have a closer look.
teger
|representation under|component
|certain conditions |
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Build_Elementary_Put_Image_Call uses the signedness of the base typ
r for
|unicode strings |Wide_Wide_Value with wide
||enumeration literal
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-18
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87332
Bug 87332 depends on bug 109817, which changed state.
Bug 109817 Summary: internal error in ICF pass on Ada interfaces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109817
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109817
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.2|15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114710
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115376
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> After trying and several attempts to find a small reproducer, I'm afraid
> that I won't be able to provide better help than the ALS team could.
Note that a small reproducer is not mandatory, so it's usual
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e54d90911858174a0c528d2c06198bc2061b3b22
commit r13-8829-ge54d90911858174a0c528d2c06198bc2061b3b22
Author: Javier Miranda
Date: Thu Apr 18 09:54:22 2024 +
ada: Storage_Erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1bec0455fb6f871bbc2c80d6e19c90deebbf824
commit r14-10298-ga1bec0455fb6f871bbc2c80d6e19c90deebbf824
Author: Javier Miranda
Date: Thu Apr 18 09:54:22 2024 +
ada: Storage_Err
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:add6d89eaed4070803882b9a0b643d963ca8d80a
commit r15-1158-gadd6d89eaed4070803882b9a0b643d963ca8d80a
Author: Javier Miranda
Date: Thu Apr 18 09:54:22 2024 +
ada: Storage_Erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115376
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
What crash do you get though? AFAICS it's a standard Constraint_Error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115305
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
They might come from https://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gcc-gitref.cgi?r=r15-615 and,
in particular, the change made to libgnarl/s-osinte__darwin.ads, in which case
the way out would be to duplicate libgnat/s-osloc
||2024-05-31
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks for creating the PR.
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-30
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Can you post the list of ACATS regressions on the 32-bit host?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115270
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115270
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 58304
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58304&action=edit
Tentative fix
Please give it a try when you have a chance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115270
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115235
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Hi, can you clarify what you mean? Why does -gsplit-dwarf without -gdwarf-5
> emit in debug fission with extended dwarf-4 if it's specifically dealing
> with dwarf 5?
The sentence is indeed a bit ambiguou
|RESOLVED
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
The implementation of -gsplit-dwarf deals specifically with DWARF 5 and later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, do you want to handle the final bootstrap+regression test? Or do you
> want me to take it from here?
I can do it right now.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This apparently comes from the fix for PR target/111235: the following code:
int data[4];
void init (unsigned int lb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 58255
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58255&action=edit
Tentative fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Keywords|EH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> However, I will comment that it maybe built but there are cats regressions
> (1) on x86_64, (2) on i686-darwin17 (many) on i686-darwin9. No idea what
> caused those at the moment - and my hardware is very
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58229|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78664
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, thanks for the explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58228|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 58228
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58228&action=edit
Tentative fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115105
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
See also PR ada/115106.
|1
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-16
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The reghunt identified
>
> commit 9b7cad5884f21cc5783075be0043777448db3fab
> Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115105
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, gcc.dg/ipa/iinline-attr.c XPASSes on 64-bit SPARC since
>
> commit ffabce849033e57ebaf60029822b81e981681c21
> Author: Eric Botcazou
> Date: Tue Nov 29 11:43:32 2022 +0100
>
> Couple of test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Tentative fixlet:
diff --git a/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc b/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc
index 2e15b05529e..84b9623058b 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc
+++ b/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc
@@ -491,7 +491,7 @@ fold_of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's the -ffold-mem-offsets pass messing up with the prologue and the
frame-related instructions (so -fno-fold-mem-offsets is a workaround).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15614
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114964
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114582
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81087
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
There is a fix in the pipeline for GCC 15, although I'm not sure if it will
handle all the issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114864
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Another instance is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114864
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Yes, this is a known issue in SRA, see PR optimization/111873, but it
apparently shows up only with nonsensical combinations of switches so, well...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap (both multilibs) has just completed
> successfully without regressions.
>
> However, sparc/sol2.h needed an #undef to fix
>
> In file included from ./tm.h:27,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, thanks, let's go ahead for Solaris then, but I agree that we'd better do
nothing for other platforms at this point.
Do you happen to have some spare cycles to conduct a testing cycle of the above
tenta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
Rainer, what's your take on this? Should we proceed and change the ABI on
Solaris for GCC 14?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
This appears to be sufficient:
diff --git a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb
index 04d114694ab..f81380846e0 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb
@@ -6076,6 +6076,12 @@ pac
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114710
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
1 - 100 of 2015 matches
Mail list logo
