http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58509
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(gdb) break fancy_abort
Breakpoint 2 at 0x9e4a04
(gdb) run -gnatwa -quiet -nostdinc -dumpbase g-awk.adb -auxbase-strip g-awk.o
-O2 -Wextra -Wall -fPIC -g -gnatpg -mcpu=ultrasparc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58493
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikpe at it dot uu.se
Host: sparc64-linux
Target: sparc-linux
Build: sparc-linux
Attempting to bootstrap gcc-4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58368
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57797
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Earnie from comment #4)
Your statement doesn't resolve anything at all. It is fine for gcc to
require c++ but it is not fine for configure to continue if I only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58369
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(All source references here are for vanilla gcc-4.8.1.)
The problem appears to start in choose_reload_regs, in the if (inheritance)
block at lines 6497 to 6679. It finds (reg:DF 0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58369
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Created attachment 30783
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30783action=edit
smaller test case, from C-reduce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58369
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Created attachment 30787
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30787action=edit
hand-reduced test case
This is as small as I can get it without losing the ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58369
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
The ICE occurs because reload is asking for a DFmode (8-byte) subreg of an
XFmode (12-byte) hardreg, but 12 % 8 != 0 so the gcc_assert fails.
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikpe at it dot uu.se
Attempting to bootstrap gcc-4.9-20130908 (r202372) on x86_64-linux fails with:
make[3]: Leaving directory `/mnt/scratch/objdir49'
Comparing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58368
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Applying r202379 didn't fix the comparison failure, but reverting r202345 did.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikpe at it dot uu.se
Created attachment 30773
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30773action=edit
Pre-processed non-reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58345
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58346
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58349
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I can't reproduce the ICE with either one of gcc 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 4.7.3, or 4.8.1,
configured as crosses to armv7l-linux-gnueabi from x86_64-linux, with options
-march=armv7-a -mfloat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58242
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58287
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
This is a duplicate of PR57848.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #11 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to anand.karanam from comment #9)
Do we need to have a copy of the Linux host includes and libraries to
prepare the cross compiler?
Or can we avoid this with newlib
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58270
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Your examples are invalid C. In one module you present the compiler with a
specific declaration, and complain when it utilizes constraints derived from
that declaration
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to anand.karanam from comment #0)
checking for suffix of object files... configure: error: in
`/home/ekarana/ekarana_2013/GCC463_OSE5.6/Solaris_to_Linux/INSTALL/build-gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
You got several 'conftest.c:16:1: internal compiler error: Bus Error' from the
newly built compiler.
You should try one of those compilation attempts manually, in gdb, to see where
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58260
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #4)
(I always build gmp/mpfr/mpc with --disable-shared exactly to avoid such
issues
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikpe at it dot uu.se
Attempting to bootstrap gcc-4.9-20130825 on powerpc64-linux fails with:
g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Unmodified FSF gcc-4.8.1 configured as follows:
/tmp/gcc-4.8.1/configure --prefix=/tmp/install --with-gmp=/path/to/my/gmp-5.1.2
--with-mpfr=/path/to/my/mpfr-3.1.2 --with-mpc=/path
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I've just bootstrapped gcc-4.8.1 on CentOS 5.8 (the closest I have to the OP's
RHEL 5.5), and LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./import does indeed SEGV there.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
CentOS 5.8 has an old binutils-2.17.50.0.6-20.el5_8.3. Building and installing
binutils-2.23.2 and rebuilding gcc-4.8.1 against that makes no difference,
./import still SEGVs. I'm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58208
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I can't reproduce the SEGV on Fedora 17 with gcc-4.8.1 -m32 or gcc-4.9 -m32.
However, I think the build recipe is flawed. If I follow it to the letter
(with -Wl,-rpath pointing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58218
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I can reproduce with gcc-4.7.3. It generates:
.section.lbss,aw,@progbits
gas doesn't like ,@progbits on .lbss and ignores it; readelf on the produced .o
file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52306
--- Comment #20 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Thorsten Glaser from comment #19)
Created attachment 30668 [details]
Testcase from qtbase-opensource-src_5.1.0+dfsg-4 and g++ 4.8.1
This issue still appears
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58158
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Alexander Barkov from comment #4)
The
vectorizer turns those into larger and still mis-aligned `movdqa' stores,
which x86 does not allow, hence the SEGV.
Can you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56824
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dehao at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58039
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Your code performs mis-aligned uint16_t stores, which x86 allows. The
vectorizer turns those into larger and still mis-aligned `movdqa' stores, which
x86 does not allow, hence
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Please attach the pre-processed test.i (gcc -E or -save-temps).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58092
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I can't reproduce the wrong-code with 4.6.4. 4.7.2, or 4.8.1. They all
generate:
test:
0: 24020002li v0,2
4: aca2sw v0,0(a1)
8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58079
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58079
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdsandiford
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58059
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
The non-preprocessed test case crashes g++ 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 for me on
x86_64-linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58061
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
This is clearly a duplicate of PR57848. Then there is PR57897 which crashes
with a different error message but still on #pragma target and mingw, I believe
that one is at least
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58064
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
init2.c:37: MPFR assertion failed: (64 - 0) == ((64 - 0)/8) * 8
sizeof(mp_limb_t) == ((64 - 0)/8)
seems your mpfr library is broken
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I see the exact same failure pattern on sparc64-linux: 4.7 generates working
code, 4.8 and 4.9 generate code that SIGBUS:es, failure starts with r190037,
-m32 or -m64 makes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58048
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58041
--- Comment #18 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #15)
Bernd, Mikael, Martin: Could you please test this on your respective
targets?
This patch eliminates the misalignment faults for me
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57967
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I can reproduce the wrong-code with gcc-4.7.3 on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi.
The wrong-code disappeared on 4.7 branch with the recent PR57829 fix in
r200773.
On trunk the wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57929
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Dup of PR49847. The patch attached there fixes this ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57896
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57896
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57886
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Dup of PR55771?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Your test case contains this:
===snip===
struct iphdr
{
...
};
...
int main()
{
char thePacket[1518];
memset(thePacket, 0, 1518);
thePacket[30] = 1;
thePacket[31] = 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Gaetano Mendola from comment #6)
struct in_addr myInAddr;
myInAddr.s_addr = theIpHeader-daddr;
as not portable, where myInAddr.s_addr and theIpHeader-daddr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57861
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57860
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57859
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
With -m64: both test cases work with gcc-3.2.3, and fail with every release
from 3.3.6 up to current trunk.
With -m32: the first test case doesn't trap with any release since 3.2.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
This has all the indications of a mis-aligned memory access. Since you're on
Linux, please make sure that the 'User faults' field in /proc/cpu/alignment
shows a value of 2 (fixup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Gaetano Mendola from comment #2)
who is faulty?
Kernel configuration on this platform, the architecture, the compiler or
even me ?
All of the above
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57864
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Created attachment 30486
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30486action=edit
slightly reduced test case in plain C
Doesn't depend on C++, this plain C version also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57864
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
The ICE on 4.7 branch started with the PR55107 backport in r195755.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57847
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
There was a known problem in the Linux kernel on ARM with gcc-4.7+ due to one
of the mem* procedures (likely memset or memcpy) being written in such a way
that its return value didn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57848
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57848
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Created attachment 30475
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30475action=edit
reduced test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57848
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
The reduced test case also ICEs 4.8-20130704, 4.7-20130706, and 4.6-20130405
(haven't checked older versions yet).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57829
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56982
--- Comment #14 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #13)
Created attachment 30431 [details]
another example of wrong compilation
This is another example where the optimization can
go
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57735
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #6)
After looking at it more closely: Mikael, are you sure the revisions are
right? It seems to me that r199813 is just the backport of r199188
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57735
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57504
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57564
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57719
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57719
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #2)
test #3: wrong code from gcc trunk (but not gcc 4.8) at -O3 in 32-bit mode
only:
The wrong-code for test #3 started with r198121.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57719
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #2)
test #4: wrong code from gcc trunk (but not gcc 4.8) at -O3 in both 32-bit
and 64-bit modes:
The wrong-code for test #4 also started
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57723
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #8)
(the
argument being that an infinite loop is in itself a side-effect observable
from
outside).
Exactly.
A function containing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57685
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Run it in gdb, wait for the fault, and disassemble the code around the faulting
PC. That valgrind report doesn't really say anything useful.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57685
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Started with the PR55079 fix in r193098.
The test case uses the values of uninitialized auto variables, perhaps that's
confusing the compiler.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57688
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52773
--- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Bernd Schmidt has posted a patch for review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01147.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57637
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52773
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
Created attachment 30319
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30319action=edit
reduced test case
Still ICEs 4.9-20130616, 4.8-20130613, and 4.7-20130615. Needs -O1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57625
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I can't reproduce with FSF gcc 4.8.1 and 4.7.2 on Fedora 17 x86_64. Your
archlinux system compiler is presumably somewhat modified; can you try again
with an FSF 4.8.1? Also please
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
It's not too difficult to make the m68k backend use 32-bit offsets in its jump
tables (adjust CASE_VECTOR_MODE, ASM_OUTPUT_ADDR_DIFF_ELT,
ASM_RETURN_CASE_JUMP, drop the sign-extend
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikpe at it dot uu.se
Created attachment 30288
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30288action=edit
test case and generator program
Switch jump tables on m68k-linux use 16-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57583
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15602 is the corresponding
binutils/gas bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57479
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57459
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #22 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
FWIW, the updated patch for gcc 4.9 bootstraps and regtests cleanly on several
hosts (x86_64, sparc64, powerpc64, armv5tel, m68k).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55030
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57479
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I can't reproduce the ICE with gcc-4.7.3 hosted on x86_64-linux configured as a
cross to either armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi or armv7l-unknown-eabi.
How was your gcc configured?
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikpe at it dot uu.se
Consider the following set of trivial functions:
cat q.c
unsigned int g(unsigned int x) { return x 0x1f; }
unsigned long f(unsigned int x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12081
--- Comment #21 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #20)
Grepping around I also
noticed that nothing used GEN_FCN11 (or is that used by the out-of-tree
OpenRISC port?) This add-on fixes
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikpe at it dot uu.se
Attempting to bootstrap gcc-4.9-20130519 on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi fails with:
/mnt/scratch/objdir49
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57321
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
I can reproduce the wrong-code. It was fixed on 4.8 branch by r198737 aka
PR56988.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56548
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
(In reply to Ralf Baechle from comment #8)
FWIW, I'm also hitting the same compiler bug with vanilla GCC 4.7.2 and
4.8.0 compiling a heavily patched 3.4 kernel with LTO for a mips64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57266
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
My m68k bootstrap has now recompiled fold-const.c + your patch three times
without warnings or errors. Thanks for the quick fix.
: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: mikpe at it dot uu.se
Attempting to bootstrap gcc-4.9-20130512 on m68k-linux fails with:
/mnt/scratch/objdir49
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57180
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
According to
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.0/gcc/Zero-Length.html#Zero-Length,
arrays of structures with trailing flex arrays are invalid and rejected. The
page also gives
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57180
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se ---
This test case also fails on x86_64-linux with every gcc release from 3.2.3 up
to today's 4.9 (r198748). Looking at the assembly code for the x[] initializer
it's easy to see why
1 - 100 of 819 matches
Mail list logo
