Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

Hi Alex, I do regular bootstraps of mainline all languages on FC3 i686-pc-linuux-gnu and haven't seen any problemss upto Friday. I'm using --enable-checking=tree,misc,rtl,rtlflag which might make a difference. Cheers Graham

Re: ada build failure?

Richard, No but I haven't been able to bootstrap with Ada since Friday I'm currently getting stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/local/NETGCC/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -O2 -g -fomit-frame-pointer -gnatpg -gnata -I- -I. -Iada -I/src/gcc4.0/gcc/gcc/ada /src/gcc4.0/gcc/gcc/ada/ada.ads -o ada/ada.o raised

Re: Stage2 Miscompilaton of Ada?

Andreas, I've had the same problem since updating on Wednesday evening :-( It did bootstrap overnight Tuesday. Cheers Graham

Re: Ada Status in mainline

Jeff, The last time I bootstrapped with Ada successfully on i686-pc-linux-gnu was around 9/10th May after that it hangs in stage3 so I've had it disabled since then. Maybe it's time once it back bootstraping to enable Ada by default during bootstraps. Graham

Re: Visual C++ style inline asms

--- Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:11PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > > >Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms? > > > > Didn't RTH objected the last time? > > One has to do a less gr

Re: Where is TARGET_EXPLICIT_RELOCS defined for MIPS?

It's done during configury Cheers Graham

Re: Somebody broke bootstrap on trunk for x86_64

It looks kike that patch contains a typo The entry for nonmemory_operand has an extra bogus false The following patch more than likely fixes the fallout I've just kicked of a x86_64 bootstrap to find out Index: gensupport.c === ---

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

Original message From: Rich Felker Date: 02/02/2018 18:32 (GMT+00:00) To: Szabolcs Nagy Cc: li...@coryfields.com, "H.J. Lu" , n...@arm.com, GCC Development Subject: Re: -static-pie and -static -pie On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 11:33:22AM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:

Re: CSE bug when narrowing constants

All, One thing that may or may not be related is that the current main fails to bootstrap on x86_64 with fold checking enabled. It aborts due to a fold-checking failure (i.e fold has modified it's inputs) using the stage1 compiler. I don't recall exactly which file it triggers on (I think it w

Re: Bootstrap failure on Linux/x86-64

Andreas, FWIW I've had successful bootstrap with these checking flags on x86_64-unknown-lunux-gnu Graham

Re: Should we remove java from the default bootstrap languages?

All, --- Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Mitchell wrote: > > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > >>> I agree. I also agree that if someone breaks Java, they should be > >>> required to fix the problem. In fact, we could have the rule that the > >>> Java maintainers get to revert a patch s