--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-19 15:43 ---
patches to fully qualify size_t as std::size_t within __gnu_cxx are
pre-approved.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27199
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-26 19:13 ---
Subject: Bug 26513
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Apr 26 19:13:18 2006
New Revision: 113281
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113281
Log:
2006-04-26 Shantonu Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-26 19:52 ---
Subject: Bug 26875
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Apr 26 19:52:31 2006
New Revision: 113283
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113283
Log:
2006-04-26 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-26 19:53 ---
fixed in 4.2.x
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-26 19:54 ---
Fixed in 4.2.0, 4.1.0
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-26 19:59 ---
Subject: Bug 26513
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Apr 26 19:59:05 2006
New Revision: 113284
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113284
Log:
2006-04-26 Shantonu Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-23 23:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=11737)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11737&action=view)
fix
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27984
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-24 00:13 ---
Subject: Bug 27984
Author: bkoz
Date: Sat Jun 24 00:13:08 2006
New Revision: 114955
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=114955
Log:
2006-06-23 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-10 19:33 ---
Subject: Bug 15448
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Jul 10 19:32:51 2006
New Revision: 115312
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115312
Log:
2006-07-10 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-10 21:37 ---
I think this is fixed, or as close as we can come.
There is now a checksum, and there are no longer any stamp files to do creation
of PCH files. Thus, in theory, this should be no longer an issue.
--
bkoz at gcc
--- Comment #21 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-11 16:50 ---
Huh. Sorry!
I'm checking in Paolo's patch.
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28290
--- Comment #22 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-11 17:48 ---
Subject: Bug 28290
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Jul 11 17:48:10 2006
New Revision: 115354
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=115354
Log:
2006-07-11 Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-12 17:15 ---
Volker, great job on the reduction for this. I am once again amazed.
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28217
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 04:57 ---
Subject: Bug 38080
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Dec 2 04:55:54 2008
New Revision: 142344
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142344
Log:
2008-12-01 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 04:58 ---
Subject: Bug 38080
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Dec 2 04:57:44 2008
New Revision: 142345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142345
Log:
2008-12-01 Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-02 05:02 ---
Audited all the headers, fixed up trunk and 4.3-branch.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
lization list.
--
Summary: explicitly defaulted constructors vs. empty direct
initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-04 03:41 ---
Yes, the default ctor is explicitly defaulted, but the copy ctor is an
(explicitly) deleted function. Deleted functions are user-defined.
Thus, this is not an aggregate.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-04 03:46 ---
FYI removing the deleted copy constructor does indeed make this an aggregate.
So:
struct test_type
{
int i;
test_type() = default;
~test_type() = default;
test_type& operator=(const test_type&)
--
Summary: static_assert vs. enums
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 20:01 ---
Adding 4.4.x reported against, as this testcase is not in 4.3.x.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 20:23 ---
The other kind of freebsd6.3 fail in libstdc++ is:
testsuite/25_algorithms/max/3.cc
/sw/test/GCC/trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/25_algorithms/max/3.cc:26: undefined
reference to `_47'
/var/tmp//ccInT4La.o(
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 20:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=17035)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17035&action=view)
add fabsf for hpux10/11
Try this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38384
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 20:48 ---
Ranier, when cross compiling, link tests cannot always be done. Therefore,
libstdc++ hardcodes "found" functions when cross compiling, and discovers
"found" functions when building for native.
T
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 20:50 ---
Subject: Bug 38384
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Jan 5 20:50:25 2009
New Revision: 143093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143093
Log:
2009-01-05 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc
--- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-05 23:47 ---
Hey y'all, if this isn't a libstdc++ issue can it be re-categorized to the gcc
component?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38477
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-06 01:58 ---
Agree, this is not a bug in the implementation, so think this is INVALID.
Resolved in C++0x. We should document this known wart in C++03 std::pair (maybe
add FAQ item?)
Propose changing the Summary to: document std
--- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-07 03:40 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-07 03:56 ---
Created an attachment (id=17042)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17042&action=view)
patch version 2
Hey! Sorry about the delay on this. Please try the attached patch, and let me
know if i
--- Comment #12 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-07 09:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=17043)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17043&action=view)
plus mt_allocator fixes
This fixes these longstanding fails on darwin:
FAIL: ext/mt_al
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-07 20:15 ---
Any luck getting past the libgomp build failure? All that is needed is trying
Jakub's patch and getting confirmation that it works. If it does then the
libgomp/libstdc++ bits can go in at the same time without fu
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 03:15 ---
Subject: Bug 36801
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Jan 8 03:14:24 2009
New Revision: 143182
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143182
Log:
2009-01-07 Benjamin Kosnik
Jonathan
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 22:41 ---
Hey Paolo, what do you think about applying this patch to the gcc-4_3-branch
and change the target milestone to 4.3.3, marking it FIXED?
-benjamin
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38000
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 22:42 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38000 ***
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 22:42 ---
*** Bug 36505 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 22:47 ---
Jakub fixed this with
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-10/msg00772.html
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 23:05 ---
Fixed on trunk since:
2008-05-16 Benjamin Kosnik
* include/std/system_error: Align to current draft specifications.
* src/system_error.cc: Same.
* src/functexcept.cc: Adjust for corrected
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 23:08 ---
I'm going to close this as "WONTFIX" due to inactivity. If you can still
reproduce this with gcc-4.3.x or gcc-4.4.x, please reopen and state the gcc and
mingw versions being used.
--
bkoz at gcc
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-08 23:39 ---
I am closing this due to inactivity. The following remain unclear to me:
1) Does this issue exist with mingw32 and configure such as:
Combined binutils/gcc in-tree build with this configuration
../src/configure
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-09 19:40 ---
Any chance I could get a generated c++config.h from a native HPUX 10.x build as
well?
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-12 20:57 ---
Created an attachment (id=17080)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17080&action=view)
for gcc-4_3-branch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36801
--- Comment #17 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-12 21:32 ---
Subject: Bug 36801
Author: bkoz
Date: Mon Jan 12 21:32:19 2009
New Revision: 143310
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143310
Log:
2009-01-12 Benjamin Kosnik
Jonathan
--- Comment #18 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-12 21:36 ---
fixed for 4.4.x/4.3.x
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-12 23:59 ---
Thanks for your help Dave: this should be fixed now. (FWIW, the 10.20 config is
correct, or mostly correct.) Still, it's nice to confirm.
Ranier, this should be working now. Can you try to cross-compile as b
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 01:35 ---
on trunk (4.4.x):
1) ld --version
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.19
checking for ld version... 21900
2) ld --version
GNU ld version 2.18.50.0.9-7.fc10 20080822
checking for ld version... 21850
3) ld --version
GNU ld (GNU
--- Comment #19 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 01:49 ---
Subject: Bug 38384
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Jan 13 01:49:30 2009
New Revision: 143322
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143322
Log:
2009-01-12 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 08:41 ---
From:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00197.html
Looking at the __signbitl issue first. HPPA is the only platform that wants to
export this. Let's try to figure out why.
I see this in include/c_g
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 08:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=17082)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17082&action=view)
patch for hppa check-abi fail
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33485
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 08:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=17083)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17083&action=view)
check abi fails
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32666
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 10:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=17084)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17084&action=view)
shiny
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-13 10:06 ---
(From update of attachment 17082)
mistaken, part of 32666
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-15 20:02 ---
Subject: Bug 32666
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Jan 15 20:02:11 2009
New Revision: 143406
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143406
Log:
2009-01-15 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-16 02:26 ---
Ouch. I see this also on arm-elf crosses, whoops.
Here's a patch that I'm currently testing on cross. If it fixes it, then I'll
check it in and then please try on hpux.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-16 02:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=17112)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17112&action=view)
add in stubs.c for long double only
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32666
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 18:50 ---
This code block appears to be capable of generating no end of issues, sadly.
For the record, POSIX head docs say -n is a requirement for conformance, at
least p.2791 of EEE Std 1003.1-2008. Of course, who knows if
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 18:52 ---
Mine
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #19 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 19:25 ---
Fixed for 4.4.0
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #10 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 19:31 ---
Subject: Bug 38919
Author: bkoz
Date: Tue Jan 20 19:30:51 2009
New Revision: 143526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143526
Log:
2009-01-20 Benjamin Kosnik
Raine
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 19:44 ---
Should be fixed now.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #39 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 20:02 ---
Hey all. It looks like the libstdc++ part of this is fixed. Therefore, I am
going to slightly edit the subject, un-assign myself, and change the component
to target. Although I suppose it could be binutils.
>F
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-20 20:56 ---
I don't think this is a libstdc++ bug per se, but configure/build and possibly
libtool-related. But I don't see a configure/build category (only a keyword),
so the current mis-categorization shall contin
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 04:04 ---
Subject: Bug 38834
Author: bkoz
Date: Wed Jan 21 04:04:24 2009
New Revision: 143538
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143538
Log:
2009-01-20 Benjamin Kosnik
Uro
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 18:02 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 18:02 ---
fixed.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 22:19 ---
Confirmed for s390x.
This is causing the following s390x libstdc++ testsuite failures, and is thus a
regression from 4.3. As far as I can tell these warnings are spurious.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 22:24 ---
I see this as well. See 38851 for more spurious uninitialized warnings.
This is a regression from 4.3, and IMHO is not minor.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 22:41 ---
fix summary
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.3
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 22:41 ---
fixed summary
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work
s: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: s390x-redhat-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38937
--- Comment #43 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-22 21:40 ---
Subject: Bug 38384
Author: bkoz
Date: Thu Jan 22 21:40:23 2009
New Revision: 143576
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143576
Log:
2009-01-22 Benjamin Kosnik
PR libstdc
--- Comment #44 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-22 22:01 ---
Hey. I couldn't stop myself: since Dave said that HPUX doesn't support symbol
versioning, (no way, no how) I have changed libstdc++ configure to reflect
this.
:)
Ranier, great to see you got something wor
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 01:52 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 02:30 ---
Please note there are no ABI baseline files checked in to the FSF GCC
repository for darwin for this (or any) release on this (or any) architecture.
Without these, there can be no automated ABI testing by the GCC
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 02:33 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 02:45 ---
Please note there are no ABI baseline files checked in to the FSF GCC
repository for darwin for this (or any) release on this (or any) architecture.
Without these, there can be no automated ABI testing by the GCC
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 02:57 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 03:20 ---
Please note there are no ABI baseline files checked in to the FSF GCC
repository for darwin for this (or any) release on this (or any) architecture.
Without these, there can be no automated ABI testing by the GCC
--- Comment #21 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-24 03:42 ---
This is fixed for hpux on trunk, and I believe it should be fixed for solaris
as well. Can some solaris tester confirm?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28125
--- Comment #30 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-26 23:31 ---
This appears to have been fixed in the gcc-4.3.0 time frame. At least,
gcc-4.2.4 has:
dependency_libs='
-L/mnt/share/bld/gcc-4.2.4/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-
v3/src
-L/mnt/share/bld/gcc-4.2.4/x86_64-un
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 00:19 ---
Updating this bug report.
This specific test case can no longer be reproduced as of gcc-4.0.x (and
continuing to 4.1.x, 4.2.x, 4.3.x, and today's trunk.)
This appears to be as a result of -std=gnu99 being req
--- Comment #19 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 00:23 ---
Fixed by 4.3.2
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 00:26 ---
Update summary.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|parse
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:02 ---
Fixed as of gcc-4.2.x.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:03 ---
Add documentation keyword
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:12 ---
Closing due to inactivity. If this is still a problem on a release branch (ie,
gcc-4.3.x and above), please re-open and provide details.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:22 ---
This could be fixed via a dg-skip-if embedded target type thing.
I don't remember seeing this fail in recent arm-elf crosses. Is this still an
active issue?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15088
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:30 ---
Hey HP, is this still an issue? Don't see test results for this target for any
currently-open gcc branches. Update please.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21321
--- Comment #22 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 01:41 ---
waiting for feedback on a current release branch (4.3) or trunk.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 04:03 ---
Fixed on trunk and gcc-4.3.4
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 04:04 ---
Fixed
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 04:23 ---
This seems like a template linkage bug specific to the powerpc-darwin8.5.0
target, probably related to simulated/incomplete support of comdat and weak
linkage on that platform via coalesced symbols. It seems unlikely
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 04:30 ---
I see:
# For LFS support.
GLIBCXX_CHECK_LFS
as part of the generic libstdc++ configuration in configure.ac for gcc trunk.
Therefore, LFS config is the same codepath for cross and native. Thus, if
mingw32 supports
--- Comment #13 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 17:26 ---
*** Bug 25956 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 17:26 ---
Duplicate
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 28017 ***
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 18:55 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-01/msg00417.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38983
--- Comment #8 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 19:47 ---
4.2.1 arm-eabi doesn't show this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-07/msg00989.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15088
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-27 20:49 ---
Looks to me like the flipside of libstdc++/7439. More broadly speaking, C99
macros vs. C++98/0x. The current status on this issue is:
For 4.1/4.2/4.3/trunk, C99 macros should be visible with
1) -std=gnu99/c99 in
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 01:41 ---
Mine.
--
bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at
--- Comment #15 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-28 03:25 ---
Here are my thoughts on how to fix this. None of the presented options is
workable, IMHO.
The preferred end goal is to only have the compatibilty.cc and
compatibilty-ldbl.cc objects in the shared library, and not in
1 - 100 of 928 matches
Mail list logo
