https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
--- Comment #9 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to Adrian Bunk from comment #6)
>"ada: GNAT Calendar Support for
> 64-bit Unix Time" reverted (which is on the gcc 14 branch).
Sorry, I was looking at the wrong branch.
This is not in gcc 14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939
Adrian Bunk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bunk at stusta dot de
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119015
--- Comment #3 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> given -Os isn't affected this is likely triggered by inlining (-fno-inline
> brings down compile-time again).
I can confirm that this is the case on armhf (~ 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119015
Bug ID: 119015
Summary: [14 Regression] g++ -O2 uses huge amounts of time and
memory
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116122
Adrian Bunk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bunk at stusta dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #15 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #11)
> RFC draft patch – also to solve an offload problem with atomic and nvptx
> libgomp:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/556297.html
> See rep
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104713
--- Comment #6 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to James Addison from comment #5)
> Could the findings indicate that there are two bugs here?
>
> - The Geode LX target capable of supporting fcf-protection but GCC-11
> currently rejects that arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104713
--- Comment #4 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Just build for those as -march=i586.
There is no "for those" in Debian.
There is one build of all packages for one i386 Debian release architecture.
Building the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104713
--- Comment #2 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Is OLPC really still around? I thought it died when Google came out with
> their chrome books.
Sorry for being unclear, this is the historical reason why the binu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104713
Bug ID: 104713
Summary: gcc does not reject -march=i686 -fcf-protection
Product: gcc
Version: 11.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102602
--- Comment #1 from Adrian Bunk ---
Created attachment 51553
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51553&action=edit
Generated assembler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102602
Bug ID: 102602
Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] 32bit mips: Error: branch out of
range
Product: gcc
Version: 10.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787
--- Comment #7 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> I see. Still GCC or GAS produces a bogus object file (the original linker
> error). It might be the new problem is an entirely different one? It looks
> more an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787
--- Comment #5 from Adrian Bunk ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> You can also try to 'reduce' the testcase. Since you are linking a shared
> object you can try to strip as many linker inputs as possible and then
> reduce the so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787
Adrian Bunk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bunk at stusta dot de
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787
Bug ID: 97787
Summary: [10/11 regression] 64bit mips lto: .symtab local
symbol at index x (>= sh_info of y)
Product: gcc
Version: 10.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sever
16 matches
Mail list logo
