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)
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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #27 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-01 00:37:22 UTC ---
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, davek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If one of you could try the whole thing with "--save-temps -v -Wl,-v
> -Wl,--verbose", and at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #26 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-02-01 00:27:21 UTC ---
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, davek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If one of you could try the whole thing with "--save-temps -v -Wl,-v
> -Wl,--verbose", and at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #24 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-31 19:35:15 UTC ---
> What endian-ness are the ppc and hppa targets?
hppa is big. I believe ppc is also big.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46967
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-27 20:24:02 UTC ---
> With r163461 backported (compiler only built with --enable-languages=c this
> time) we ran the libgomp testsuite 3 times, failed 11/248 tests, 0/248 tests
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #20 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-27 18:06:02 UTC ---
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> Merging should happen after unmerged files are dumped. Perhaps they go to
> some
> funny place,
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47493
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-27 17:27:40 UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47493
>
> Tobias Burnus changed:
>
>What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-27 17:07:34 UTC ---
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I need to see the dump from merging, too.
> They gets name of one of the .o files when -save-temps i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #16 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-20 00:13:36 UTC ---
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011, dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca wrote:
> Here is abs-1.c.000i.cgraph:
The above call graph indicates main_test is not called. Here is
mai
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47287
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-18 01:36:54 UTC ---
Created attachment 23011
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23011
20010124-1.c.000i.cgraph
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47287
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-18 01:36:53 UTC ---
Attached .cgraph files.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #15 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-18 00:21:42 UTC ---
Here is abs-1.c.000i.cgraph:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #14 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-18 00:10:55 UTC ---
This is it!
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-17 18:39:14 UTC ---
Last graph.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47274
--- Comment #12 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-17 18:32:22 UTC ---
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> It seems that we get wrong already when streaming abs-1-lib.o file. Would be
> possible to attach cgrap
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47287
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2011-01-17 15:12:38 UTC ---
> I suppose you are using GNU ld, right?
Yes (gold has not been ported).
> On trunk x86_64 with stock binutils 2.21 I get
>
> > cat 20010124-1.res
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46950
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-20 00:36:28 UTC ---
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> The same revision caused pr46916. Could you try the patch in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-18 22:42:13 UTC ---
> Any chance this gets backported?
It's not a regression, but I think it should be backported since it breaks
Linux in a somewhat random manner. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-18 21:25:30 UTC ---
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Does this still happen if -g is removed? (Via -g0)
No. Attached change fixes fails on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 12:51:51 UTC ---
> Thanks, I'll look at that. However, I think branch_to_delay_slot_p can
> be improved. It probably should also check for asms and return FALSE
> i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 12:44:21 UTC ---
> Yeah, the insn count for asm is just a guess. You should never put inline asm
> into a delay slot, you really don't know how big it is or if it is suit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 03:59:09 UTC ---
Created attachment 22734
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22734
pa.c.d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 03:59:08 UTC ---
Testing attached change. branch_to_delay_slot_p didn't correctly
handle asms, etc. When it is fixed, branch_needs_nop_p isn't needed.
It also didn't h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 02:49:57 UTC ---
Reduced testcase attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 02:45:38 UTC ---
Created attachment 22731
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22731
xxx.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46915
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-13 02:45:37 UTC ---
Reduced testcase attached.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46913
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-12 21:14:37 UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46913
>
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2010-12-12
> 20:18:59 UTC ---
> If it doesn't work on s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46913
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-12 20:10:51 UTC ---
> So post a patch to gcc-patches?
Will do when I complete testing on the system where I see the problem.
It currently doing a full check that I don't want to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-09 16:46:50 UTC ---
Attached .ii.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46801
--- Comment #1 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-04 18:01:04 UTC ---
Attached tree dump.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46671
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-12-03 17:22:07 UTC ---
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46671
>
> --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
--- Comment #9 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-30 22:22:22 UTC ---
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, John David Anglin wrote:
> > On the other side, the above is still broken with
> > -freorder-blocks-and-partition and I guess even be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46685
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-30 21:52:57 UTC ---
> On the other side, the above is still broken with
> -freorder-blocks-and-partition and I guess even before Honza's change it has
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46584
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-26 19:04:56 UTC ---
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46584
>
> --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2010-11-26
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-23 18:45:14 UTC ---
> Any reason why this patch isn't submitted/commited?
No. I was traveling and forgot about it. Access to the arm box
on my desk is unreliable.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46595
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-23 02:18:42 UTC ---
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu wrote:
> Have you tried with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02121.html
> applied?
I ha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46595
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-22 14:35:17 UTC ---
> Have you tried with http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg02121.html
> applied?
No, but it looks like it would fix the failures.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46510
--- Comment #15 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-18 23:53:19 UTC ---
> powerpc-apple-darwin9 is currently regtesting without anything obvious so far
> (at obj-c++).
My MacPro is darwin9, and I'm only setup to do 32-bit bu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46510
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-18 23:37:15 UTC ---
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> What happens if you remove the gcc_assert at line 338 of varpool.c (see
> comment
> #8)?
hp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46529
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-18 14:05:39 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2010-11-18
> 10:11:00 UTC ---
> Huh. But after all it correctly detects the tests won't work ...
Actually, t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #99 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-14 23:12:25 UTC ---
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, bonzini at gnu dot org wrote:
> Minimized testcase:
>
> int f (unsigned long arg, int *cr)
> {
> int *p = (int *) arg;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #95 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-08 17:00:41 UTC ---
> CC fs/ioctl.o
> fs/ioctl.c: In function 'do_vfs_ioctl':
> fs/ioctl.c:601:1: internal compiler error: in update_df, at fwprop.c:877
> Pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45636
--- Comment #25 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-07 19:44:07 UTC ---
> The change was r166378 and if the test failures are the only reason to keep
> this bug report open then it we should be able to close it now.
Closing would be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46292
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-03 19:32:50 UTC ---
> Dave, can you please regression test this patch?
Sorry, I'm just about to run out the door for a flight. Possibly,
tomorrow.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46292
--- Comment #2 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-11-03 18:19:59 UTC ---
> What happens if you just remove the assert?
Testing.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44970
--- Comment #90 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-20 14:39:26 UTC ---
> The armv5 failure is a stage2 miscompilation. Is it caused by Bernd's patch
> too? Or by fwprop?
Actually, the ICE I saw this morning was in stage3.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
--- Comment #3 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia.nrc.ca 2010-10-18 18:28:07 UTC ---
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46040
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-15
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
