https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115027
--- Comment #3 from Dr. David Alan Gilbert ---
(For my own keeping track, Jakub replied to that patch with a suggestion:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/Zwlg8VYJXQmEC65C@tucnak/ )
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dave at treblig dot org
Target Milestone: ---
It would be nice to generate a warning in the following case, which I tripped
over in the Linux kernel:
#include
struct foo {
s
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dave-gccbugs at earth dot li
Target Milestone: ---
I misread the help page, and so asked for help on ^, this caused a segfault.
$ gcc --help=^
cc1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71507
--- Comment #4 from Dr. David Alan Gilbert ---
Ah thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71507
--- Comment #1 from Dr. David Alan Gilbert ---
Created attachment 38692
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38692&action=edit
compressed, preprocessed c++
erity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dave at treblig dot org
Target Milestone: ---
This compile has been cooking for 50+mins on an i7 so far, nothing in the .s,
and it's RAM usage is unchanging (and not
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dave at daveolday dot com
Created attachment 33162
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33162&action=edit
Internal compiler error
During compile of gnuradio using pybombs the procedure gets to one f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #10 from dave at firstcomp dot biz 2013-03-11 18:58:00 UTC ---
I forgot to add when I reentered stuff. This was from MinGW running
on Windows XP, but got same error messages on a Linux machine (sent it
to someone to check
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #9 from dave at firstcomp dot biz 2013-03-11 18:54:10 UTC ---
As shown in other attachments, for me it generated references to other
lines (many lines away in the big program I tried to reduce this to),
& if I removed all ear
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
--- Comment #8 from dave at firstcomp dot biz 2013-03-11 18:51:12 UTC ---
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56599
>
> --- Comment #1 from A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
--- Comment #16 from Dave Abrahams 2012-12-14
16:34:31 UTC ---
Normative text vs. non-normative note == no contest, IMO. But I guess it
doesn't hurt to have the bug open if it doesn't mean any changes to the
library.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55581
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2012-12-04
19:30:40 UTC ---
Actually, here's a simpler test case:
template
struct mooch
{
mooch operator->();
};
template <>
struct mooch<0>
{
int x;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55581
Bug #: 55581
Summary: Too-eager instantiation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams 2012-11-04
16:48:39 UTC ---
PS my apologies again for the size. Just no time to reduce it now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55206
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2012-11-04
16:47:37 UTC ---
I hate bugzilla for always tempting me to think I can add attachments when
first submitting a bug, and then refusing the attachment because it's too big.
Voilà
++ -I ~/src/boost/svn/release -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -Wno-long-long
-Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-unused -Wno-parentheses -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG -g -O0
shared.cpp -o shared
In file included from
/Users/dave/src/boost/svn/release/boost/make_shared.hpp:15:0,
from shared.cpp:24:
/Users
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51823
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54706
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams 2012-09-25
19:55:31 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> As already discussed in another PR, with -fsyntax-only no template
> instantiation occurs. Can be that?
Certainly that explains it.
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54706
Bug #: 54706
Summary: -fsyntax-only suppresses a compilation error
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #6 from Dave Abrahams 2012-08-18
23:18:21 UTC ---
Jason, are you submitting (or is there already) an issue for this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52875
Bug #: 52875
Summary: ADL failure + ICE in decltype
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869
Bug #: 52869
Summary: "this" not being allowed in noexcept clauses
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2012-04-03
15:06:08 UTC ---
I think the problem is simple: missing initial type argument to vector_c in:
template
auto apply_tuple(F f, Tuple const & t, vector_c)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52844
Bug #: 52844
Summary: ICE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
A
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #4 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
13:24:16 UTC ---
Not a problem; thanks for looking.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
12:11:33 UTC ---
on Mon Dec 19 2011, "redi at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #4 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
10:58:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes, this was an intentional choice (as I described in message
> c++std-lib-30840) to ensure the system doesn't get killed by a fork bomb, e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
Bug #: 51618
Summary: synchronous futures are slow
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
05:11:20 UTC ---
I should add this (non-normative, but still) note from [futures.async]:
[ Note: If this policy is specified together with other policies, such as when
using a policy value of launch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51617
Bug #: 51617
Summary: [C++0x] async(f) isn't.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-15
00:58:37 UTC ---
Close this please! So sorry; I was totally misinterpreting what I saw.
There's no compiler crash.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-15
00:53:24 UTC ---
Created attachment 26097
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26097
reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51561
Bug #: 51561
Summary: Compilation segfault
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51553
Bug #: 51553
Summary: brace initialization and conversion operators
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51530
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-13
17:46:22 UTC ---
Created attachment 26072
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26072
reproducer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51530
Bug #: 51530
Summary: internal compiler error: in unify, at cp/pt.c:16854
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #3 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-11
10:32:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Could this be related to Bug 45873?
Not if your explanation in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45873#c2
is correct, I think. This i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-10
21:06:14 UTC ---
Created attachment 26045
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26045
test case
compile with -std=c++11 to see the failure. Additionally add -DWORKAROUND to
demonstr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51501
Bug #: 51501
Summary: decltype over-agressive SFINAE
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47335
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48051
--- Comment #1 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-10
19:19:02 UTC ---
Created attachment 26044
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26044
Another test case
Sorry, it's a bit long. Hopefully fixing the others handles this one too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51489
Bug #: 51489
Summary: constexpr not working consistently
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51478
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49511
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-06-28 18:46:19 UTC ---
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49511
>
> --- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49511
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-06-27 17:15:23 UTC ---
> could you please run the exact commands used in the run_acats which
> function and report the results:
>
> type -p gnatmake 2>/dev/null
> echo $?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49500
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-06-23 21:36:05 UTC ---
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Hi,
> the problem is that emultls introduces aliases later and it does not
> understand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49454
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-06-21 17:23:27 UTC ---
> I should have mentioned in comment #2 that the build and test I did included
> the proposed patch in comment #11 pf PR 49429.
I assumed so. Richard'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46350
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-06-21 13:38:12 UTC ---
> Try to remove the cast to System.Interrupt_Management.Interrupt_ID in the
> call.
It fixes the compile error. Testing in progress...
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-06-08 17:59:18 UTC ---
> Perhaps something like:
> union { int i; char c[8]; } u;
> int
> main ()
> {
> int *p;
> asm volatile ("" : "=r" (p)
M-Audio Delta 1010 LT Sound card - 96 kHz - 24-bit
we will be waiting to read back from you the unit cost on each products, so
that we can advice on the quantity needed on each
Regards
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49190
--- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-31 00:03:14 UTC ---
Bootstrap restored on i686-apple-darwin9.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49007
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-23 18:52:27 UTC ---
On Mon, 23 May 2011, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > This code fails to handle the case where there already is a use.
>
> This should have been
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49007
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-21 14:57:02 UTC ---
> Could this have been fixed by PR 42775 which does not change reorg but rather
> free_cfg?
No. I have tried it on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 and just tried it with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49007
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-16 16:22:28 UTC ---
On Mon, 16 May 2011, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> By trial and error, it appears tree-cfgcleanup.c is miscompiled at -O1
> without -fno-delayed-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48932
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-09 13:44:04 UTC ---
On Sun, 08 May 2011, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Appears to be fixed in 4.5 and 4.6.
Actually, bug is in 4.5.1 but not 4.5.3. The only relevant fix tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48932
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-08 22:47:52 UTC ---
Attached sched-deps.i.gz.
The branch has been incorrectly placed in the delay slot. The ldil
instruction is needed when the branch is taken but not when the branch
is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48905
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-07 14:46:56 UTC ---
On Sat, 07 May 2011, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Introduced in revision 173428. Testing "cris-elf" fix.
The attached patch fixes this PR. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48893
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-05-05 23:33:46 UTC ---
Attached .i. cc1 compile args are:
-fpreprocessed pex-unix.i -quiet -dumpbase pex-unix.c -auxbase-strip
pic/pex-unix.o -g -O2 -Wextra -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #16 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-27 21:08:26 UTC ---
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> I hope the problem is now fixed at mainline tree. Could you please give it a
> try?
Bug is still pres
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #14 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-27 15:20:32 UTC ---
> I still can't reproduce the testcase but I guess I can make one myself just by
> forcing global constructor. Will try to have patch before lunch.
I re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-26 18:11:43 UTC ---
> Any clue what is wrong?
> After dinner I will try to look into the add_new_function path and figure out
> why summaries are not computed as they should.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-25 01:27:59 UTC ---
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, John David Anglin wrote:
> > I've comitted patch for bug with similar symptoms today. Does it still
> > reproduce for you?
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-24 20:24:00 UTC ---
> I've comitted patch for bug with similar symptoms today. Does it still
> reproduce for you?
I noticed that and started a couple of new builds. Shoul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-24 19:13:22 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-04-24 18:27:20 UTC ---
> evaulate?!?
I believe it must be Czech...
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48752
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-24 13:49:30 UTC ---
Attached .ii file.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48441
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-04 22:30:50 UTC ---
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Attached .i.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48366
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-04 00:34:48 UTC ---
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011, John David Anglin wrote:
> > I guess that the last patch (for pr48380) I sent should solve the problem
> > too.
> > Unfortunat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48366
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-04-03 18:37:07 UTC ---
> I guess that the last patch (for pr48380) I sent should solve the problem too.
> Unfortunately, I did not get an approval for the patch yet.
I'll try it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48366
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-30 23:30:54 UTC ---
Attached .i and relevant rtl dumps.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48315
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-29 17:26:17 UTC ---
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Could you post a pre-processed file here ?
Attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48288
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-25 15:52:22 UTC ---
> I'd say PA64 should handle iordi3 w/o libgcc, no?
It does. My initial guess is the breakage was introduced by
the fix for PR 48263.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #11 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-22 21:05:32 UTC ---
> Yes, I can do that. Do you know how the test fails on HP-UX 10.*?
> Does it fail to compile or does it compile and then fail during execution like
> it d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-22 19:01:21 UTC ---
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, sje at cup dot hp.com wrote:
> In running this test on IA64 and x86, the first call is the only one that I
> see
> getting inline
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48209
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-21 23:03:11 UTC ---
> It looks like this is broken for HP-UX 11.11 and 11.23. On 11.31 there is a
> object that can be linked in (unix2003.o) to fix this. Just like we
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48161
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-17 18:37:51 UTC ---
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Untested fix. The reason it uses gen_rtx_PLUS directly is to make sure it
> doesn't generate code i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48161
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-17 14:25:36 UTC ---
/home2/dave/gcc-4.6/objdir/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/home2/dave/gcc-4.6/objdir/./prev-g
cc/ -B/home2/dave/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/hppa-linux/bin/
-B/home2/dave/opt/gnu/gc
c/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48161
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-17 13:51:03 UTC ---
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you please attach preprocessed source and gcc options used to compile it?
> I'd look with a cro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #38 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-10 16:58:38 UTC ---
> While the latter is fixed, I think the _REENTRANT issue isn't. Or is it?
>
> If it it not fixed, I think we should have (a different) PR open to trac
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #30 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-09 00:10:22 UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
>
> --- Comment #29 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-03-08
> 22:38:49 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #28
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #27 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-07 17:59:27 UTC ---
> >> All fortran testing is broken on Tru64 UNIX, where libgfortran.so has an
> >> undefined reference to clock_gettime:
> >> The functi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #35 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-05 17:06:23 UTC ---
> > In testing fix for above, I see:
> >
> > ../../../gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/ctime.c: In function 'strctime':
> > ../../../gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #30 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-03-03 13:56:25 UTC ---
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please shout loudly if there you still encounter a build failure!
>
>
> TO BE DONE: The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #26 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-26 13:59:50 UTC ---
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I think the build bug is now FIXED; thus:
>
> Please shout loudly if there you still encounte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #23 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-24 14:55:52 UTC ---
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > libgfortran.sl is built twice on HP-UX 10, once for the single thread
> > model and once for th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-23 20:15:34 UTC ---
> As there localtime_r is also used in intrinsics/date_and_time.c, I would
> assume
> that one sees the same message there.
Yes. I see them for all _r uses
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-23 14:30:15 UTC ---
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Patch which should hopefully fix the getpwuid_r issue on HP-UX 10.2:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #17 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-23 14:28:38 UTC ---
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01453.html
Patch resolves ctime.c build. However, _REENTR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-21 19:38:33 UTC ---
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
>
> --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-21
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47802
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 20:56:54 UTC ---
> Is there no way to get a posix compliant ctime? Alternatively, we'll need
> autoconf magic to detect the extra arg. I know at one time it was relative
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47804
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 18:54:59 UTC ---
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Created attachment 23397
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23397
> gcc46-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 01:00:35 UTC ---
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I suppose the safe thing to would be add the right signature and leave that
> there, but I can't imagi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47792
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-18 00:38:54 UTC ---
> Aha! :)
>
> There's a typo in gthr-dce.h
>
> __gthread_mutx_destroy (__gthread_mutex_t *__mutex)
>
> s/mutx/mutex/
Good catch! I wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47622
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-06 16:05:29 UTC ---
Attached dumps.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-05 17:09:48 UTC ---
> Can't reproduce that with a cross to hppa64-hp-hpux11.11, I get the expected
> error instantly.
Sorry, this is my fault. I misapplied your patch.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-05 01:03:51 UTC ---
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-04
> 23:08:21 UTC ---
> Created attachment 23249
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47610
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-04 20:28:03 UTC ---
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please provide preprocessed source, so I can try to reproduce it with a cross
> compiler.
Attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #21 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-04 14:42:39 UTC ---
> Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg00196.html
>
> This is my previous janitorial patch, + a kludge which I believe should fix
> the
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-03 15:33:37 UTC ---
> > on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. Weak references don't work on this target and
> > probably others.
>
> If weak symbols do not work, why is then
1 - 100 of 1352 matches
Mail list logo
