http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54283
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-11-16 09:11:36 UTC ---
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-16
01:06:20 UTC ---
Does this still happen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-06 16:56:35 UTC ---
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-06
16:41:45 UTC ---
Improvements so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-12 11:07:21 UTC ---
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-10
10:56:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-12 15:53:49 UTC ---
The extreme sparcv9 libgo compile times without
-fno-var-tracking-assignments are handled in PR debug/54402, it seems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44495
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-12 16:04:21 UTC ---
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-11
08:32:07 UTC ---
Does this still occur?
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-13 13:12:00 UTC ---
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-12
22:21:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 28942
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54283
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-18 12:06:21 UTC ---
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-18
10:30:12 UTC ---
So not a bug then?
I don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54283
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-18 12:12:32 UTC ---
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-18
12:09:52 UTC ---
If you don't add that /vol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54283
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-12-19 14:33:55 UTC ---
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-19
12:04:19 UTC ---
Given that -static-libstdc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55594
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-06 15:42:03 UTC ---
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-06
15:10:01 UTC ---
So, can we restrict the -Wa,-nH
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54283
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-07 12:08:27 UTC ---
I can now confirm that using g++ 4.7 as bootstrap compiler works out of
the box. Even with the problems I've observed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54283
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-07 13:06:16 UTC ---
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-07
12:55:39 UTC ---
But that is not a requirement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-21 10:07:02 UTC ---
--- Comment #28 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
11:08:06 UTC ---
Is the mem-clobbering
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54507
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-21 10:09:18 UTC ---
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-18
11:08:43 UTC ---
FYI, var-tracking just got
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-24 12:45:44 UTC ---
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-23
16:49:05 UTC ---
Is it still a regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56076
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-29 15:05:14 UTC ---
--- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2013-01-25
23:43:57 UTC ---
May be fixed now. Not sure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56173
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-02 21:05:42 UTC ---
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2013-02-02
16:12:35 UTC ---
Can you verify that the files
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56172
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-04 13:00:59 UTC ---
Thanks for the analysis.
Since you can recreate the bug, I guess the next step is to check the
mp-waitsema field
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58722
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't believe it. This is exactly what r203427 fixed. Are you sure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58833
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Would it be possible for GCC in Solaris to auto-configure itself as a 64-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
[...]
If anyone is willing to test the patch on any platform but especially
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59235
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Ranier,
The only sparc box in the farm is the painfully slow gcc54 which someone else
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58934
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #14 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #12)
FAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47334
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
This issue now causes new failures on Solaris 9 with Sun as:
FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-1.c -O2 -flto (test for excess errors)
Excess
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43734
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #8 from Rolf Eike Beer e...@sf-mail.de ---
I get the same problem using gcc 4.5, 4.7, and 4.8 on a Sun Fire V240 running
Gentoo. Even
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43734
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #11 from Rolf Eike Beer e...@sf-mail.de ---
I don't have the least idea what's going on here, and cannot debug
issues on Linux/SPARC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59408
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
This problem should be fixed now. Sorry about that.
It does for the vast majority
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59432
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com ---
FYI, the point of the test is to get that segmentation violation and ensure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59433
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've found what's going on: when I look at the failing bufio test, gdb
prints
gdb) p rfds
Cannot access memory at address 0xfd7ffe0f9f00
With pmap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22007
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Issue seems to be solved for 32-bit and 64-bit windows on cygwin-host. I
can't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #44 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #43 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #40)
Please try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-08-06 12:20:47 UTC ---
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-02
15:17:25 UTC ---
If I replace only the ld from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-08-09 10:45:20 UTC ---
--- Comment #7 from damz dshanke at gmail dot com 2012-08-08 17:40:37 UTC
---
How I wish that the supportability matrix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #33 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:42:44 UTC ---
--- Comment #26 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-08-30 14:19:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:44:22 UTC ---
--- Comment #27 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-08-30 14:56:46 UTC ---
FWIW, I just filed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:49:28 UTC ---
--- Comment #28 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-08-30 17:32:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #36 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:51:58 UTC ---
--- Comment #30 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-09-01 08:18:06 UTC ---
I commented out gcc-4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #37 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:54:42 UTC ---
--- Comment #32 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-09-01 11:22:55 UTC ---
Went back to 4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-20 09:05:40 UTC ---
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-19
12:23:01 UTC ---
Still broken?
Still
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-26 13:58:58 UTC ---
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-26
13:54:35 UTC ---
This means we have a stale
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-27 07:57:04 UTC ---
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-26
14:13:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 28283
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-27 15:59:38 UTC ---
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-27
13:28:12 UTC ---
Hmm, strange. What if you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-04 12:41:42 UTC ---
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com 2012-09-28
08:54:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-04 12:46:34 UTC ---
--- Comment #9 from gellert at dkrz dot de 2012-09-25 17:00:22 UTC ---
[...]
I agree that gcc/g++/... not adding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54869
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-09 15:05:31 UTC ---
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper drepper.fsp at gmail dot com
2012-10-09 11:23:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-11 09:05:18 UTC ---
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-10
04:58:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Maybe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-11-07 13:46:39 UTC ---
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07
13:31:26 UTC ---
So, is this now fixed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-11-08 12:27:20 UTC ---
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-07
18:20:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-11 13:47:21 UTC ---
The error can be reproduced on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with gas by
disabling weakref support, i.e. setting
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56171
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-12 14:43:41 UTC ---
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2013-02-11
19:16:41 UTC ---
[...]
Note that this test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-13 11:19:37 UTC ---
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-12
19:27:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-14 10:13:03 UTC ---
--- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-13
12:06:02 UTC ---
Thanks for testing. It looks
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #30 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-18 16:16:18 UTC ---
I've run another reghunt, which revealed that the 4.8 regression was
caused by this patch:
2012-05-23 Jan Hubicka j
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56320
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-21 16:23:52 UTC ---
--- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2013-02-20
19:46:42 UTC ---
Should be fixed now, I hope
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55308
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-22 15:48:00 UTC ---
There seems to be something totally confused here: when linking
libgcc_s.so, there's a reference to libstdc++.so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55308
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-25 13:29:36 UTC ---
--- Comment #8 from N8GCBP7SHNBTI79GINADGKJPRTLOCO2A at cmx dot ietfng.org
2013-02-23 03:13:27 UTC ---
If I do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-03-26 10:18:00 UTC ---
Unfortunately, Andrew Pinski's patch from PR debug/51471 doesn't help
this time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #36 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-05 10:41:42 UTC ---
With the new reduced testcase I'm now also able to reproduce the failure
on an x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu x mips-sgi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #37 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-05 14:16:12 UTC ---
I forgot to mention that for the build to succeed you also need r184239
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-11 14:30:49 UTC ---
--- Comment #39 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-11
11:35:33 UTC ---
[...]
Ok, the --enable
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #41 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-15 09:27:09 UTC ---
I'm currently running a bootstrap of gcc 4.7.3 with this patch applied
and without any special --enable-checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-15 12:51:20 UTC ---
--- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-12
16:13:20 UTC ---
Can this be reproduced
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-05-07 14:57:20 UTC ---
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-06
16:55:04 UTC ---
This doesn't happen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-05-07 15:09:04 UTC ---
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-05-07
15:06:45 UTC ---
But what's
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41590
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-05-08 09:17:11 UTC ---
--- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan skannan at redhat dot com 2013-05-08
07:05:37 UTC ---
Which version of GCC are you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56033
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-04-22 14:22:15 UTC ---
Following the recipe in comment #5, the following
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Within the last week (20130503 to 20150510), the failure has changed
into an ICE:
-FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20091219 cp_lto_20091219_0.o-cp_lto_20091219_0.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56033
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
[...]
I've included the complete patch in i386-pc-solaris2.* bootstraps, too
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-07 12:37:37 UTC ---
While the checksum files are expected to differ (thus there are only
warnings about them), the size increase looks really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:08:13 UTC ---
--- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor ian at airs dot com 2012-04-24
16:33:13 UTC ---
At some point, can you update
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:36:03 UTC ---
--- Comment #21 from Hin-Tak Leung htl10 at users dot sourceforge.net
2012-05-08 14:15:52 UTC ---
I think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:54:15 UTC ---
--- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-04-23 22:19:35
UTC ---
Can you please back port this to 4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53284
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-09 11:45:10 UTC ---
--- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-08
22:39:35 UTC ---
Can you investigate why configure
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53300
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-11 10:08:11 UTC ---
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-10
17:59:46 UTC ---
[...]
Does the following hack avoid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-16 10:51:33 UTC ---
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-05-15
19:09:37 UTC ---
Yes, the test should only run in 32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53474
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-25 11:30:08 UTC ---
Sure: a i386-pc-solaris2.10 bootstrap completed with this patch without
issues.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-06-25 15:16:42 UTC ---
--- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-25 14:55:41
UTC ---
I'm seeing SEGVs in i386-pc-solaris2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-06-27 09:00:52 UTC ---
--- Comment #19 from Alexandre Oliva aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27
06:30:05 UTC ---
Alas, it doesn't work on i686
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51094
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-07-09 16:28:24 UTC ---
Passed testing on i386, bootstrapped fine on x86_64 multilib, I'd appreciate
testing on 32-bit multilib platform.
I've just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Thank you. It seems that the weakref is simply not output into the file, so we
end up
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #1)
I solved the infinite loop problem on plugin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Hi,
the following patch sets IDENTIFIER_TRANSPARENT_ALIAS correctly from
lto-symtab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57434
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Working in 4.8 and 4.9?
Working in both.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I'd expect that: both the Solaris and Darwin assemblers have no weakref
support, so the results should be the same.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57450
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Use absu_hwi
That works, getting me into stage 2. I'll let the bootstrap finish
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Works fine on i386-pc-solaris2.10 with Sun as.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57473
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Also fails on Solaris 9 with Sun as, will check if current mainline works
again.
Both i386
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #39 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #36 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I am having problem to reproduce it on a cross compiler. I assume you have
non
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
Unfortunately, that doesn't easily backport to the 4.8 branch since that
lacks
alias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57413
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
Closing this bug was premature: as I've mentioned before, I've been
working
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #4)
I can see the same problem under
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
Certainly not: IRIX
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2013-01-15 18:14:17 UTC ---
This is also seen on darwin due to
To make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58108
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does this bug still reproduce (I fixed problem related to x86 local calls that
may fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose doko at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Mark's patch is in binutils 2.23.x, but the testcase is still failing on
x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61748
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr ---
I have silenced the failure with the following patch
--- ../_clean/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61822
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev ysrumyan at gmail dot com ---
Hi Rainer,
Could you try attached patch to check if it helps (test should
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #62 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #60 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
[...]
Fix:
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #63 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #62 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
[...]
With the patch, SPARC bootstrap concluded
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61949
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
it's odd that stage2 is not affected... can you provide preprocessed source
I
1 - 100 of 1313 matches
Mail list logo
