Bug#342126: gcc-4.0: gcc generates bad assembly code for simple code

Hi, Sorry by that, I have not noticed de '$'. It should be a '&'. Really, this is not a import bug. Thanks, Vagner. Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: Vagner Pedrotti writes:> When I compile the following simple code, gcc fails with:> /tmp/ccySlj9q.s: Assembler messages:> /tmp/ccySlj9q.

Bug#342245: gcc-3.4: boost 1.33.x FTBFS with "cannot handle R_PARISC_PCREL17F..."

Package: gcc-3.4 Version: 3.4.4-10 Severity: important hi, starting with version 3.4.4-10, gcc-3.4 makes boost 1.33.x FTBFS. /usr/bin/ld: bin/boost/libs/serialization/build/libboost_serialization.so/gcc/debug/shared-linkable-true/basic_iarchive.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZSt24__uninitialized_copy_auxIN

Bug#342267: gcc-4.0: boost 1.33.x FTBFS with "cannot handle R_PARISC_PCREL17F..."

Package: gcc-4.0 Version: n/a Severity: important hi, gcc-4.0 makes boost 1.33.x FTBFS on hppa. this bug is probably the same of #342245 for gcc-3.4, only that gcc-4.0 _never_ built 1.33.x on that architecture. /usr/bin/ld: bin/boost/libs/serialization/build/libboost_serialization.so/gcc/debug/

Bug#342267: gcc-4.0: boost 1.33.x FTBFS with "cannot handle R_PARISC_PCREL17F..."

did you check the suggestion from the error message? please notice that the error message comes from the linker (binutils). Domenico Andreoli writes: > Package: gcc-4.0 > Version: n/a > Severity: important > > hi, > > gcc-4.0 makes boost 1.33.x FTBFS on hppa. this bug is probably the > same of #

Bug#342267: gcc-4.0: boost 1.33.x FTBFS with "cannot handle R_PARISC_PCREL17F..."

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 05:41:14PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > did you check the suggestion from the error message? please notice > that the error message comes from the linker (binutils). -ffunction-sections? yes, i did some time ago but nothing changed. i already submitted a bug report to bin

[Bug libstdc++/19664] libstdc++ headers should have pop/push of the visibility around the declarations

--- Comment #87 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-12-06 17:05 --- current 4.1(+libstdc++ patch) works fine for PR21382 on amd64 and ppc. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19664 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or ar

Results for 3.4.5 (Debian 3.4.5-1) testsuite on sparc-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_3_4_5_release revision 107795 Native configuration is sparc-linux-gnu (sparky) === gpc tests === Running target any FAIL: fjf980a.pas FAIL: fjf980b.pas FAIL: fjf998r.pas === gpc Summary === # of tests496

Results for 4.0.3 20051201 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.2-5) testsuite on arm-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Thu Dec 1 18:58:03 UTC 2005 (revision 107827) Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnu === libffi tests === Running target unix FAIL: libffi.call/closure_fn0.c (test for excess errors) WARNING: libffi.call/closure_fn0.c compilation failed to produce executabl

Bug#173513: [Bug tree-optimization/9079] [tree-ssa] Inline constant function pointers

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2005-09-07 17:38:57 |2005-12-07 03:05:19 date||

Bug#181096: [Bug tree-optimization/9814] gcc fails to optimise if (l&2) l|=2 away

--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-07 03:12 --- Once fold does (a&b)!=0?a|b:a to a and PR 25290 is fixed then this will be caught at the tree level. There are most likely others like this too. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Rem

[Bug c++/6634] wrong parsing of "long long double"

-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2005-09-04 18:20:30 |2005-12-07 04:47:52 date||