https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to vvinayag from comment #20)
> The patch did not fix the issue for me, unfortunately, because CXX_FOR_BUILD
> is still set to 'g++'.
> But to make it work, I added the line: CXX="$CXX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #20 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
(In reply to vvinayag from comment #18)
> (In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #17)
> > Created attachment 48917 [details]
> > aarch64 native build fix
> >
> > Could you please try the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #19 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
Created attachment 48921
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48921=edit
Add -std=c++11 to the aarch64 native build fix
This patch adds CXX="$CXX -std=c++11" to the patch provided
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #18 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #17)
> Created attachment 48917 [details]
> aarch64 native build fix
>
> Could you please try the attached patch? It fixed the issue for me, and
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #17 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Created attachment 48917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48917=edit
aarch64 native build fix
Could you please try the attached patch? It fixed the issue for me, and
survived
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #16 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I finally managed to reproduce this by doing `./configure
--host=aarch64-none-linux-gnu` on gcc113. The problem is that `CXX_FOR_BUILD`
doesn't seem to be set correctly - normally it's `g++-4.8.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #15 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #14)
> gcc113 has 4.8.4, which is a bit newer. But in any case, according to
> https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html, gcc should support nullptr
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #14 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
gcc113 has 4.8.4, which is a bit newer. But in any case, according to
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html, gcc should support nullptr since
4.6.
Could you please post the failing compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #13 from vvinayag at arm dot com ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #12)
> I managed to bootstrap and regtest upstream commit 6e41c27bf549 on gcc113
> farm machine.
>
> Two questions:
>
> - What is your system compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #12 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I managed to bootstrap and regtest upstream commit 6e41c27bf549 on gcc113 farm
machine.
Two questions:
- What is your system compiler version? For GCC 11, C++11 compiler is required:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #11 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Sorry about that! I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
vvinayag at arm dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vvinayag at arm dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Ilya Leoshkevich :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d59a576b8b5e12c3a56f0262912090e2921f5daa
commit r11-1785-gd59a576b8b5e12c3a56f0262912090e2921f5daa
Author: Ilya Leoshkevich
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #8 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Created attachment 48750
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48750=edit
proposed patch (tests are running)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #7 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Would it be OK then to replace last arguments of functions with
__attribute__((sentinel)) from NULLs to nullptrs? I can make a patch for this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
To be really safe during stage 1, GCC should not use NULL as a pointer sentinel
in C++ code anyway.
The bootstrap compiler could define it to 0 or 0u, neither of which is
guaranteed to be OK to pass as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #5 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
I'm sorry, I should not have written (uintptr_t)0 - I just used it as a synonym
for a "pointer-sized int". Would allowing 0L as a sentinel value be a
reasonable thing?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Leoshkevich ---
Created attachment 48740
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48740=edit
preprocessed output
In the preprocessed output I see that gcc's stddef.h is used, but most likely
`#define NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #0)
> musl has the following commit:
> https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/
> ?id=c8a9c22173f485c8c053709e1dfa0a617cb6be1a, which suggests that C++ (as
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> I don't think it is a good idea to allow (uintptr_t) 0 as valid sentinel.
Definitely not. (uintptr_t)0 is not a null pointer constant, and is not a valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
21 matches
Mail list logo
