On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 03:21:14AM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> It is because of this line:
>
> i[456]86-*-*)
> config_dir="x86"
> ;;
>
> It should include a 3 too. My bad sorry. I have fixed it. Attached, please
> find a patch. It is committed as obvious.
It is not just about not i
On 30/10/13 16:56, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 03:23 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> I believe that's only a minor reason for making signed overflows
>> undefined behaviour. If it were a matter of implementation, I think it
>> would have been made "implementation defined" rather than "undefined"
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 3:46 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: Gerald Pfeifer; Jeff Law; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] RE: libcilkrts/runtime/config/generic/cilk-abi-vla.c
> failure
> (was: [PATCH, commi
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:32:19PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> > It is not just about not including 3, but also the []s in configure.ac were
> > eaten by
> > m4. In any case, shouldn't you fix also config/generic?
> >
>
> I am in the process of fixing config/generic. I also replaced [456] wi
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:32:19PM +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> > It is not just about not including 3, but also the []s in configure.ac
>> > were eaten by
>> > m4. In any case, shouldn't you fix also config/generic?
>> >
>>
>> I am in the process of fixing config/ge
Hello Everyone,
I am currently looking to fix the bug reported in PR 58925. Here is the
issue,
When the user configures using the following command:
../gcc/configure --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs --disable-bootstrap
--disable-werror --disable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++
Let's check my understanding:
1) We can configure gcc with, say, --offload-target=mic,ptx. It means
that after build and install we have 3 compilers: for host, for mic
and for ptx. In general case, the number may be less, because one
compiler may suit more than one target/host (e.g.when host and on
on a related note, is there something I have to do to make the compiler
bootstrap on x86_64?
on x86_64 I checked out a fresh branch this morning, and my bootstrap
fails trying to configure cilk runtime. It was doing it yesterday to me
when I updated, so I tried a fresh checkout this morning..
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew MacLeod [mailto:amacl...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:44 AM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'; Jeff Law
> Subject: Re: Question about a fix for PR 58925
>
> on a related note, is there something I have to do to make the
On 10/31/2013 12:05 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrew MacLeod [mailto:amacl...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:44 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'; Jeff Law
Subject: Re: Question about a fix for PR 58925
on a related note, is there so
Given the logic in c/c-decl.c's diagnose_mismatched_decls, if a
built-in function is *also* declared in a system header (which is
common with newlib), gcc fails to mention either the builtin or the
declaration if you redeclare the function as something else.
I.e. this code:
int foo();
On 10/31/2013 08:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 30/10/13 16:56, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 10/30/2013 03:23 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>> I believe that's only a minor reason for making signed overflows
>>> undefined behaviour. If it were a matter of implementation, I think it
>>> would have been made
On 10/31/2013 12:13 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/31/2013 12:05 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andrew MacLeod [mailto:amacl...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:44 AM
To: Iyer, Balaji V
Cc: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'; Jeff Law
Subject: Re: Question about a fi
On 31/10/13 17:51, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 10/31/2013 08:02 AM, David Brown wrote:
On 30/10/13 16:56, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 10/30/2013 03:23 PM, David Brown wrote:
I believe that's only a minor reason for making signed overflows
undefined behaviour. If it were a matter of implementation, I th
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew MacLeod [mailto:amacl...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:14 PM
> To: Iyer, Balaji V
> Cc: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'; Jeff Law
> Subject: Re: Question about a fix for PR 58925
>
> On 10/31/2013 12:05 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> >
> >> -Ori
On 10/31/2013 01:02 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/31/2013 12:13 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
There isnt much difference in the log or status files... nothing real
obvious. ie, no fails or anything... still looking... I *hate*
configuration crud. sigh.
Andrew
OK, hacking around with configur
On 10/31/2013 03:31 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/31/2013 01:02 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 10/31/2013 12:13 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
but the file is in the correct directory:
/gcc/2013-10-31/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/32/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.so
-> libstdc++.so.6.0.19
/gcc
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 04:10:51PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/31/2013 03:31 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >On 10/31/2013 01:02 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>On 10/31/2013 12:13 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >
> >but the file is in the correct directory:
> >/gcc/2013-10-31/build/x86_64-unknown
Hi Rainer,
This patch looks OK.
Thanks,
Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Rainer
Orth
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:02 AM
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; Gerald Pfeifer; Jeff Law; gcc@gcc.gnu.or
I have run into a canadian cross build problem that seems to have existed
for some time involving the caddr_t type and the mingw compilers. For
example, here is an email from 2011:
https://sourceware.org/ml/crossgcc/2011-03/msg00161.html
There are several comments about how to work around this p
[Retrying in plain text]
Hi
Background info:
This question is prompted from debugging a segfault reported at
https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/1215925?comments=all. The
segfault only occurs on gcc linaro-4.7 on an arm target[1]. However,
similar RTL appears in fsf 4.7, so it's not a Lin
cOn Thu, 31 Oct 2013, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> It should include a 3 too. My bad sorry. I have fixed it. Attached,
> please find a patch. It is committed as obvious.
Thanks.
Now the next failure mode, I'm afraid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58951
libtool: link: /scratch2/tmp/ge
22 matches
Mail list logo
