--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-04
17:52 ---
Subject: [4.5 regression] cc1 SEGV compiling maxval_r16.c
Unfortunately, gdb 7.0 crashes as well, so I cannot investigate the
problem this way. But I've been able to produce a minimized testcase,
which
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-04
18:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] cc1 SEGV compiling maxval_r16.c
I'll build a cross compiler from i386-pc-solaris2.10 and see if I can
reproduce the problem there.
Unfortunately, the problem does
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-04
18:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] cc1 SEGV compiling maxval_r16.c
Unfortunately, the problem does not reproduce in such a cross compiler,
so I'll have to either start a native reghunt or find a way to debug
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-18
11:17 ---
Subject: Re: Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not
declared in this scope
--- Comment #5 from YLitvinenko at astana dot oilfield dot slb dot com
2009-11-18 07:03
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-19
11:25 ---
Subject: Re: Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not
declared in this scope
--- Comment #7 from alanpae at ilkda dot com 2009-11-18 19:39 ---
changing to --disable
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-20
17:10 ---
Subject: Re: Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not
declared in this scope
The #c4 patch looks wrong, instead of that you should IMHO just not use UNUSED
macro
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-24
18:42 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE building stage 1 libgcc on IRIX 5.3: SEGV in
compare_access_positions
--- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 18:16
---
Can you please
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-12-11
17:25 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks
Tru64 UNIX Ada bootstrap
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 11:20
---
Is this still
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-12-11
18:37 ---
Subject: Re: Bootstrap with Sun Studio 12.1 fails
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg00625.html.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41771
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-05
11:30 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE building stage3 libiberty/regex.o on Tru64
UNIX: verify_ssa failed
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:16
---
The testcase works
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-06
11:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE building stage 1 libgcc: SEGV in
compare_access_positions
--- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 18:46
---
I posted a slightly
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-06
12:24 ---
Subject: Re: O32 libgfortran.so fails to link on IRIX 6.5
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 14:48 ---
I cannot see any point in retaining this PR against the gfortran
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-11
19:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE building stage 1 libgcc: SEGV in
compare_access_positions
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-06
11:55 ---
[...]
I'm now
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-12
12:08 ---
Subject: Re: 64-bit null_pointer_deref1 gnat.dg test consumes all available
memory
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-03 18:49
---
Somewhat expected, see the comment
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-13
15:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks
Ada bootstrap
--- Comment #10 from simon at pushface dot org 2010-01-11 22:12 ---
I have (locally!) rolled back
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-18
12:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks
Ada bootstrap
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-16 14:54
---
Created an attachment (id
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-20
16:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks
Ada bootstrap
--- Comment #20 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-01-18 12:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-21
17:11 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility with
static common vars.
--- Comment #30 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-01-21 16:57 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-26
16:38 ---
Subject: Re: testsuite failures
--- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-26 16:31 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I've found that the problem doesn't occur when assembler patch
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-02-01
09:21 ---
Subject: Re: gfortran.dg/stat_[12].f90 may fail on NFS filesystems
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-29 22:35
---
I'd say add a comment to the testcase and WONTFIX
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-03-09
18:38 ---
Subject: Re: amd64 TLS IE code sequence on Solaris 2/x86 violates spec
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-09 18:11
---
Please also upload tie.o.
Done.
Rainer
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-03-09
18:43 ---
Subject: Re: amd64 TLS IE code sequence on Solaris 2/x86 violates spec
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-09 18:30
---
Please also update tie executables generated
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-03-09
19:14 ---
Subject: Re: amd64 TLS IE code sequence on Solaris 2/x86 violates spec
--- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-09 18:45
---
Sun linker changes
4: 64 48 8b 14 25 00
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-17
08:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on
Solaris 2/SPARC
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 20:57
---
This is really strange
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-21
14:24 ---
Subject: Re: stabs debug info fails onIRIX 5.3
I don't think this is a gcc bug. While the native IRIX 5 tools use
ECOFF debugging info embedded in ELF (mdebug), they don't know about
Stabs-in-ECOFF
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28
11:16 ---
Subject: Re: lto-elf.c fails to compile on Solaris
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-23 14:34
---
What's the status of this bug?
I haven't checked anything before
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28
14:40 ---
Subject: Re: lto-elf.c fails to compile on Solaris
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 13:01
---
Hmm, I am not at all sure what problem I should have
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28
17:51 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in gcc/config/soft-fp/divtf3.c
gcc-tgc at jupiterrise dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org writes:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x084bd3c5 in df_ref_compare (r1
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28
18:00 ---
Subject: Re: preprocessor fails with myassertion
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-23 22:43
---
This one appears to have fallen through the cracks. Reported exactly
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28
19:30 ---
Subject: Re: preprocessor fails with myassertion
Maybe Eric has a sparcv9 compiler around and can easily check this?
I only have 4.3.5, 4.5.1 and 4.6.0 compilers for sparc64-sun-solaris2.x
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28
22:17 ---
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 22:09
---
While the advantages
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-04
08:53 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.4.0 20090210 - The 'copy-vmresources.sh' script can't find
the 'mkinstalldirs' script.
Could you please retry the bootstrap with current sources and absolute
pathnames to $srcdir
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-04
08:55 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.4.0 20090117 - init_priority incorrect for GNU ld in
gcc/config/sol2.h
I regularly build all three combinations on mainline now: Sun as/ld, GNU
as/Sun ld, and GNU as/ld, to make sure
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06
19:17 ---
Subject: Re: Using --enable-threads=solaris breaks near end of build in
boehm-gc configury
--- Comment #6 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:00 ---
This is now documented
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06
19:27 ---
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:20 ---
This is an Enhancement (EG: I wish
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06
19:32 ---
Subject: Re: gcc 4.4.0 20090204 - Configury from GNU linker to Operating
System's Linker broke (reverse works OK)
--- Comment #8 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:05 ---
As I've said
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-12
11:50 ---
Subject: Re: Solaris 2.9 x86 Sun assembler doesn't like rep/lock prefixes on
same line
--- Comment #3 from jay dot krell at cornell dot edu 2010-05-12 10:50
---
Using something like
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-19
14:03 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in gcc/config/soft-fp/divtf3.c
--- Comment #6 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2010-05-19 13:41
---
I have a deadline and do not have time to play
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-19
14:07 ---
Subject: Re: ICE in gcc/config/soft-fp/divtf3.c
--- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2010-05-19 14:06
---
df maintainers cannot approve their own patches. you should get
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-20
10:32 ---
Subject: Re: Solaris 2.9 x86 Sun assembler doesn't like rep/lock prefixes on
same line
--- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 10:30
---
Patching in configure pieces
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-21
09:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] All libjava tests fail on IRIX 6.5: ld warns
about -no-merge-exidx-entries
--- Comment #3 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-21 08:15 ---
(In reply
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-04
15:21 ---
Subject: Re: lto-elf.c fails to compile on Solaris
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-03 13:47
---
The problem seems to have vanished, so eventually the fix can
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-07
14:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] gmp multilib support broke bootstrap with static
libgmp
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 17:48
---
First off
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-07
16:32 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran
failing tests that worked previously
I've now analysed this further: the test only fails at -O3. The failure
is an abort
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-09
19:19 ---
Subject: Re: bunch of warnings of second definition on osf
I've regularly seen those warnings, but ignored them since I've found no
ill effect and the testsuite largely passes (which doesn't use
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-15
14:09 ---
Subject: Re: 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0
--- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 13:51
---
if(atan(1.0, i/10.0) -atan2(1.0, i
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-21
12:47 ---
Subject: Re: 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 21:51 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
This makes no sense
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-22
15:42 ---
Subject: Re: 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-22 01:24
---
atan2_1.f90 has failed on other
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-23
12:07 ---
Subject: Re: -pthreads option with -shared does not cause libpthread.so to
be linked in.
I've found that the Sun Studio compiler behaves the same with its -mt
option and asked the maintainers about
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-24
12:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Preprocessor ICE with -m64 and
--traditional-cpp
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-24 11:51 ---
created. But, as this PR lacks
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-24
13:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Preprocessor ICE with -m64 and
--traditional-cpp
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-24 12:56 ---
Can't reproduce on x86_64-linux
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25
16:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Preprocessor ICE with -m64 and
--traditional-cpp
It occured to me that this is only failing for me with 32-bit cc1,
i.e. i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25
16:49 ---
Subject: Re: 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0
--- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-22 01:24
---
atan2_1.f90 has failed on other
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25
19:26 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran
failing tests that worked previously
Great, thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38946
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25
20:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran
failing tests that worked previously
Jerry,
Try this version of the test case and see what it does. If this fails, I
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25
20:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran
failing tests that worked previously
--- Comment #26 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 20:41
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-09
16:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] All Objective-C execution tests fail on Solaris
2/SPARC
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-09 16:29
---
On Solaris 9
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-09
18:30 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] All Objective-C execution tests fail on Solaris
2/SPARC
The reghunt revealed Richard's mem-ref2 patch as the culprit:
2010-07-01 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-09
19:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran
failing tests that worked previously
May I backport the patch to the 4.4 and 4.5 branches, too?
Thanks.
Rainer
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-13
10:16 ---
Subject: Re: --enable-build-with-cxx plugin tests fail
This patch should restore the use of the previous stage compiler for plugins.
Indeed: with the exception of the $(ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX) handling
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-20
19:20 ---
Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only
i386-solaris*).
--- Comment #16 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-07-20 19:02 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply
--- Comment #33 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-21
07:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran
failing tests that worked previously
--- Comment #32 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 04:37
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
10:35 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
Here you go:
Breakpoint 5, output_operand_lossage (cmsgid=0xfe940c60 ) at
/var
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
12:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 10:46
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
13:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
Can you compile with -da and find out in which dump D#71 has been introduced
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
14:29 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
in *.expand looks correct, that var_location is %o0 instead of %g1 though. So
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
15:04 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
--- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14:58
--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22
15:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
--- Comment #20 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 15:32
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-23
08:59 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC:
output_operand: invalid expression as operand
The sparc-sun-solaris2.10 bootstrap completed successfully with your
patch
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-03
17:23 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Ada bootstrap failure on IRIX 6.5: SIGBUS in
sem_aggr.sort_case_table
I'm now running an mips-sgi-irix6.5 bootstrap with Ada included with
this patch.
Thanks.
Rainer
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-06
16:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Ada bootstrap failure on IRIX 6.5: SIGBUS in
sem_aggr.sort_case_table
Unfortunately, even with your patch the mips-sgi-irix6.5 Ada bootstrap
is still broken.
Rainer
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-09
12:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris
2/SPARC
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 10:38
---
Presumably 163997 then.
Indeed
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-10
15:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no
Solaris 2/SPARC
A reghunt identified that the regression was caused by this patch:
2010-09-07 Jan Hubicka j...@suse.cz
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-10
15:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris
2/SPARC
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 13:27
---
I don't have access to sparc-sun
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-10
19:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris
2/SPARC
So please attach a testcase (easiest is probably in a non-bootstrapped
tree run make check and pick a simple one
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-14
11:40 ---
Subject: Re: All ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2
--- Comment #3 from nathan at codesourcery dot com 2010-09-14 10:23
---
yes, I'm testing a patch that checks the glibc version number -- I'm
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-15
15:34 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.6 regression] Comparison failure in gcc/ada/ali.o on
Solaris 2/SPARC
A reghunt identified the responsible patch:
2010-09-10 Jan Hubicka j...@suse.cz
* tree-ssa-ccp.c
77 matches
Mail list logo
