[Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-09-17 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-17 08:55 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on Solaris 2/SPARC > --- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 20:57 > --- > This is reall

[Bug bootstrap/45658] [4.6 regression] Comparison failure in gcc/ada/ali.o on Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-09-15 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-15 15:34 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.6 regression] Comparison failure in gcc/ada/ali.o on Solaris 2/SPARC A reghunt identified the responsible patch: 2010-09-10 Jan Hubicka * tree-ssa-ccp.c

[Bug testsuite/45664] All ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2

2010-09-14 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-14 11:40 --- Subject: Re: All ifunc tests fail on Solaris 2 > --- Comment #3 from nathan at codesourcery dot com 2010-09-14 10:23 > --- > yes, I'm testing a patch that checks the glibc version

[Bug bootstrap/45611] [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-09-10 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-10 19:10 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC >> > So please attach a testcase (easiest is probably in a non-bootstrapped >> > tree run make check

[Bug bootstrap/45611] [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-09-10 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-10 15:48 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC > --- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 13:27 > --- > I don't have a

[Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-09-10 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-10 15:15 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC A reghunt identified that the regression was caused by this patch: 2010-09-07 Jan Hubicka * tree

[Bug bootstrap/45611] [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-09-09 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-09 12:41 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] SIGBUS in generate_option_input_file on Solaris 2/SPARC > --- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 10:38 > --- > Presumably 16

[Bug tree-optimization/45421] [4.6 regression] Ada bootstrap failure on IRIX 6.5: SIGBUS in sem_aggr.sort_case_table

2010-09-06 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-06 16:20 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Ada bootstrap failure on IRIX 6.5: SIGBUS in sem_aggr.sort_case_table Unfortunately, even with your patch the mips-sgi-irix6.5 Ada bootstrap is still broken. Rainer

[Bug tree-optimization/45421] [4.6 regression] Ada bootstrap failure on IRIX 6.5: SIGBUS in sem_aggr.sort_case_table

2010-09-03 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-03 17:23 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Ada bootstrap failure on IRIX 6.5: SIGBUS in sem_aggr.sort_case_table I'm now running an mips-sgi-irix6.5 bootstrap with Ada included with this patch. Thanks. R

[Bug bootstrap/45028] [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand

2010-07-23 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-23 08:59 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand The sparc-sun-solaris2.10 bootstrap completed successfully with your patch and

[Bug bootstrap/45028] [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand

2010-07-22 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22 15:54 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand > --- Comment #20 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 15

[Bug bootstrap/45028] [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand

2010-07-22 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22 15:04 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand > --- Comment #18 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 14

[Bug bootstrap/45028] [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand

2010-07-22 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22 14:29 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand > in *.expand looks correct, that var_location is %o0 instead of %g1 tho

[Bug bootstrap/45028] [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand

2010-07-22 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22 13:50 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand > Can you compile with -da and find out in which dump D#71 has been introdu

[Bug bootstrap/45028] [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand

2010-07-22 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22 12:10 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand > --- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-22 10

[Bug bootstrap/45028] [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand

2010-07-22 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-22 10:35 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] ICE building 64-bit libjava on Solaris 2/SPARC: output_operand: invalid expression as operand Here you go: Breakpoint 5, output_operand_lossage (cmsgid=0xfe940c60 "

[Bug testsuite/38946] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously

2010-07-21 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #33 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-21 07:56 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously > --- Comment #32 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-21 04

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

2010-07-20 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-20 19:20 --- Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*). > --- Comment #16 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-07-20 19:02 --- > (In reply to comment #15) >&g

[Bug testsuite/42843] --enable-build-with-cxx plugin tests fail

2010-07-13 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-13 10:16 --- Subject: Re: --enable-build-with-cxx plugin tests fail > This patch should restore the use of the previous stage compiler for plugins. Indeed: with the exception of the $(ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX) handl

[Bug testsuite/38946] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously

2010-07-09 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-09 19:17 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously May I backport the patch to the 4.4 and 4.5 branches, too? Thanks. Rainer

[Bug objc/44887] [4.6 regression] All Objective-C execution tests fail on Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-07-09 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-09 18:30 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] All Objective-C execution tests fail on Solaris 2/SPARC The reghunt revealed Richard's mem-ref2 patch as the culprit: 2010-07-01 Richard Guenther PR middl

[Bug objc/44887] [4.6 regression] All Objective-C execution tests fail on Solaris 2/SPARC

2010-07-09 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-09 16:34 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] All Objective-C execution tests fail on Solaris 2/SPARC > --- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-09 16:29 > --- > On

[Bug testsuite/38946] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously

2010-06-25 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25 20:43 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously > --- Comment #26 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-25 20

[Bug testsuite/38946] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously

2010-06-25 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25 20:34 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously Jerry, > Try this version of the test case and see what it does. If this fails, I w

[Bug testsuite/38946] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously

2010-06-25 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25 19:26 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously Great, thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38946

[Bug fortran/44448] 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0

2010-06-25 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25 16:49 --- Subject: Re: 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0 >> --- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-22 01:24 >> --- >> atan2_1.f90 h

[Bug preprocessor/39213] [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Preprocessor ICE with -m64 and --traditional-cpp

2010-06-25 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-25 16:48 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Preprocessor ICE with -m64 and --traditional-cpp It occured to me that this is only failing for me with 32-bit cc1, i.e. i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11

[Bug preprocessor/39213] [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Preprocessor ICE with -m64 and --traditional-cpp

2010-06-24 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-24 13:50 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Preprocessor ICE with -m64 and --traditional-cpp > --- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-24 12:56 --- > Can't reproduce on x

[Bug preprocessor/39213] [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Preprocessor ICE with -m64 and --traditional-cpp

2010-06-24 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-24 12:20 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 regression] Preprocessor ICE with -m64 and --traditional-cpp > --- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-24 11:51 --- > created. But, as this PR l

[Bug target/18788] "-pthreads" option with "-shared" does not cause libpthread.so to be linked in.

2010-06-23 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-23 12:07 --- Subject: Re: "-pthreads" option with "-shared" does not cause libpthread.so to be linked in. I've found that the Sun Studio compiler behaves the same with its -mt option and asked

[Bug fortran/44448] 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0

2010-06-22 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-22 15:42 --- Subject: Re: 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0 > --- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-22 01:24 > --- > atan2_1.f90 has failed

[Bug fortran/44448] 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0

2010-06-21 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-21 12:47 --- Subject: Re: 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0 > --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 21:51 --- > (In reply to comment #5) >> T

[Bug fortran/44448] 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0

2010-06-15 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-15 14:09 --- Subject: Re: 32-bit gfortran.dg/atan2_1.f90 fails on Solaris 1[01]/x86 at -O0 > --- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 13:51 > --- >> if(atan(1.0, i/10.0)

[Bug libstdc++/44475] bunch of warnings of "second definition" on osf

2010-06-09 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-09 19:19 --- Subject: Re: bunch of warnings of "second definition" on osf I've regularly seen those warnings, but ignored them since I've found no ill effect and the testsuite largely passes (w

[Bug testsuite/38946] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously

2010-06-07 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-07 16:32 --- Subject: Re: [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] gcc trunk 143562 - Testsuite - gfortran failing tests that worked previously I've now analysed this further: the test only fails at -O3. The failure is an abo

[Bug libgcj/44415] [4.6 regression] gmp multilib support broke bootstrap with static libgmp

2010-06-07 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-07 14:03 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] gmp multilib support broke bootstrap with static libgmp > --- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-04 17:48 > --- > First off this

[Bug lto/40702] lto-elf.c fails to compile on Solaris

2010-06-04 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-06-04 15:21 --- Subject: Re: lto-elf.c fails to compile on Solaris > --- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-03 13:47 > --- > The problem seems to have vanished, so eventually th

[Bug libgcj/44216] [4.6 regression] All libjava tests fail on IRIX 6.5: ld warns about -no-merge-exidx-entries

2010-05-21 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-21 09:26 --- Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] All libjava tests fail on IRIX 6.5: ld warns about -no-merge-exidx-entries > --- Comment #3 from rwild at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-21 08:15 --- > (In re

[Bug target/44074] Solaris 2.9 x86 Sun assembler doesn't like rep/lock prefixes on same line

2010-05-20 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-20 10:32 --- Subject: Re: Solaris 2.9 x86 Sun assembler doesn't like rep/lock prefixes on same line > --- Comment #13 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-20 10:30 > --- > Patching in co

[Bug bootstrap/43870] ICE in gcc/config/soft-fp/divtf3.c

2010-05-19 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-19 14:07 --- Subject: Re: ICE in gcc/config/soft-fp/divtf3.c > --- Comment #8 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2010-05-19 14:06 > --- > df maintainers cannot approve their own patches. you s

[Bug bootstrap/43870] ICE in gcc/config/soft-fp/divtf3.c

2010-05-19 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-19 14:03 --- Subject: Re: ICE in gcc/config/soft-fp/divtf3.c > --- Comment #6 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2010-05-19 13:41 > --- > I have a deadline and do not have time to play with t

[Bug target/44074] Solaris 2.9 x86 Sun assembler doesn't like rep/lock prefixes on same line

2010-05-12 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-12 11:50 --- Subject: Re: Solaris 2.9 x86 Sun assembler doesn't like rep/lock prefixes on same line > --- Comment #3 from jay dot krell at cornell dot edu 2010-05-12 10:50 > --- > > Usi

[Bug bootstrap/39111] gcc 4.4.0 20090204 - Configury from GNU linker to Operating System's Linker broke (reverse works OK)

2010-05-06 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06 19:32 --- Subject: Re: gcc 4.4.0 20090204 - Configury from GNU linker to Operating System's Linker broke (reverse works OK) > --- Comment #8 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:05 --- >

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

2010-05-06 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06 19:27 --- Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*). > --- Comment #12 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:20 --- > This is an "Enhancement&q

[Bug boehm-gc/37017] Using --enable-threads=solaris breaks near end of build in boehm-gc configury

2010-05-06 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-06 19:17 --- Subject: Re: Using --enable-threads=solaris breaks near end of build in boehm-gc configury > --- Comment #6 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2010-05-04 07:00 --- >>> This is now d

[Bug target/38924] gcc 4.4.0 20090117 - init_priority incorrect for GNU ld in "gcc/config/sol2.h"

2010-05-04 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-04 08:55 --- Subject: Re: gcc 4.4.0 20090117 - init_priority incorrect for GNU ld in "gcc/config/sol2.h" I regularly build all three combinations on mainline now: Sun as/ld, GNU as/Sun ld, and GNU as/ld, to

[Bug libgcj/39161] gcc 4.4.0 20090210 - The 'copy-vmresources.sh' script can't find the 'mkinstalldirs' script.

2010-05-04 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-05-04 08:53 --- Subject: Re: gcc 4.4.0 20090210 - The 'copy-vmresources.sh' script can't find the 'mkinstalldirs' script. Could you please retry the bootstrap with current sources and abso

[Bug bootstrap/39150] Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*).

2010-04-28 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28 22:17 --- Subject: Re: Configure scripts have no 64-Bit Solaris defined (only i386-solaris*). > --- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 22:09 > --- > While the adva

[Bug middle-end/39883] preprocessor fails with myassertion

2010-04-28 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28 19:30 --- Subject: Re: preprocessor fails with myassertion >> Maybe Eric has a sparcv9 compiler around and can easily check this? > > I only have 4.3.5, 4.5.1 and 4.6.0 compilers for sparc64-sun-solar

[Bug middle-end/39883] preprocessor fails with myassertion

2010-04-28 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28 18:00 --- Subject: Re: preprocessor fails with myassertion > --- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-23 22:43 > --- > This one appears to have fallen through the cracks. Reporte

[Bug bootstrap/43870] ICE in gcc/config/soft-fp/divtf3.c

2010-04-28 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28 17:51 --- Subject: Re: ICE in gcc/config/soft-fp/divtf3.c "gcc-tgc at jupiterrise dot com" writes: > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > 0x084bd3c5 in df_ref_compare (r1=0xa3278

[Bug lto/40702] lto-elf.c fails to compile on Solaris

2010-04-28 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28 14:40 --- Subject: Re: lto-elf.c fails to compile on Solaris > --- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-28 13:01 > --- > Hmm, I am not at all sure what problem I should have

[Bug lto/40702] lto-elf.c fails to compile on Solaris

2010-04-28 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-28 11:16 --- Subject: Re: lto-elf.c fails to compile on Solaris > --- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-23 14:34 > --- > What's the status of this bug? I haven't chec

[Bug debug/39104] stabs debug info fails onIRIX 5.3

2010-04-21 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-04-21 14:24 --- Subject: Re: stabs debug info fails onIRIX 5.3 I don't think this is a gcc bug. While the native IRIX 5 tools use ECOFF debugging info embedded in ELF (mdebug), they don't know about Stab

[Bug target/43309] amd64 TLS IE code sequence on Solaris 2/x86 violates spec

2010-03-09 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-03-09 19:14 --- Subject: Re: amd64 TLS IE code sequence on Solaris 2/x86 violates spec > --- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-09 18:45 > --- > Sun linker changes > >4

[Bug target/43309] amd64 TLS IE code sequence on Solaris 2/x86 violates spec

2010-03-09 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-03-09 18:43 --- Subject: Re: amd64 TLS IE code sequence on Solaris 2/x86 violates spec > --- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-09 18:30 > --- > Please also update tie executables

[Bug target/43309] amd64 TLS IE code sequence on Solaris 2/x86 violates spec

2010-03-09 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-03-09 18:38 --- Subject: Re: amd64 TLS IE code sequence on Solaris 2/x86 violates spec > --- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-03-09 18:11 > --- > Please also upload tie

[Bug fortran/42900] gfortran.dg/stat_[12].f90 may fail on NFS filesystems

2010-02-01 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-02-01 09:21 --- Subject: Re: gfortran.dg/stat_[12].f90 may fail on NFS filesystems > --- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-29 22:35 > --- > I'd say add a comment to the testca

[Bug libgomp/29986] testsuite failures

2010-01-26 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-26 16:38 --- Subject: Re: testsuite failures > --- Comment #6 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-26 16:31 --- > (In reply to comment #5) >> I've found that the problem doesn'

[Bug middle-end/42068] [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility with static common vars.

2010-01-21 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-21 17:11 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility with static common vars. > --- Comment #30 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-01-21 16:57 --- > Subject: Re: [4.5 regr

[Bug middle-end/42068] [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility with static common vars.

2010-01-20 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-20 16:37 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks Ada bootstrap > --- Comment #20 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-01-18 12:57 --- > Subject: Re: [4.5 regressio

[Bug middle-end/42068] [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks Ada bootstrap

2010-01-18 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-18 12:20 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks Ada bootstrap > --- Comment #16 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-16 14:54 > --- > Created an a

[Bug middle-end/42068] [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks Ada bootstrap

2010-01-13 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-13 15:03 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks Ada bootstrap > --- Comment #10 from simon at pushface dot org 2010-01-11 22:12 --- > I have (locally!) rolle

[Bug ada/41929] 64-bit null_pointer_deref1 gnat.dg test consumes all available memory

2010-01-12 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-12 12:08 --- Subject: Re: 64-bit null_pointer_deref1 gnat.dg test consumes all available memory > --- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-03 18:49 > --- > Somewhat expected

[Bug tree-optimization/42157] [4.5 regression] ICE building stage 1 libgcc: SEGV in compare_access_positions

2010-01-11 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-11 19:05 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE building stage 1 libgcc: SEGV in compare_access_positions > --- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-06 > 11:55 --- [...] >

[Bug libfortran/40344] O32 libgfortran.so fails to link on IRIX 6.5

2010-01-06 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-06 12:24 --- Subject: Re: O32 libgfortran.so fails to link on IRIX 6.5 > --- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 14:48 --- > I cannot see any point in retaining this PR again

[Bug tree-optimization/42157] [4.5 regression] ICE building stage 1 libgcc: SEGV in compare_access_positions

2010-01-06 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-06 11:55 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE building stage 1 libgcc: SEGV in compare_access_positions > --- Comment #12 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 18:46 > --- > I posted a

[Bug bootstrap/42619] [4.5 regression] ICE building stage3 libiberty/regex.o on Tru64 UNIX: verify_ssa failed

2010-01-05 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-01-05 11:30 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE building stage3 libiberty/regex.o on Tru64 UNIX: verify_ssa failed > --- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 11:16 > --- > The

[Bug bootstrap/41771] Bootstrap with Sun Studio 12.1 fails

2009-12-11 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-12-11 18:37 --- Subject: Re: Bootstrap with Sun Studio 12.1 fails Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-12/msg00625.html. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41771

[Bug bootstrap/42068] [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks Tru64 UNIX Ada bootstrap

2009-12-11 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-12-11 17:25 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE in function_and_variable_visibility breaks Tru64 UNIX Ada bootstrap > --- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-27 11:20 > --- > Is t

[Bug bootstrap/42157] [4.5 regression] ICE building stage 1 libgcc on IRIX 5.3: SEGV in compare_access_positions

2009-11-24 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-24 18:42 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] ICE building stage 1 libgcc on IRIX 5.3: SEGV in compare_access_positions > --- Comment #1 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-24 18:16 > --- >

[Bug target/41810] Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not declared in this scope

2009-11-20 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-20 17:10 --- Subject: Re: Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not declared in this scope > The #c4 patch looks wrong, instead of that you should IMHO just not use UNUS

[Bug target/41810] Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not declared in this scope

2009-11-19 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-19 11:25 --- Subject: Re: Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not declared in this scope > --- Comment #7 from alanpae at ilkda dot com 2009-11-18 19:39 --- > chang

[Bug target/41810] Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not declared in this scope

2009-11-18 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-18 11:17 --- Subject: Re: Cannot build gcc: gthr-default.h:466: error: '__mutex' was not declared in this scope > --- Comment #5 from YLitvinenko at astana dot oilfield dot slb dot com >

[Bug target/41930] [4.5 regression] cc1 SEGV compiling maxval_r16.c

2009-11-04 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-04 18:34 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] cc1 SEGV compiling maxval_r16.c > Unfortunately, the problem does not reproduce in such a cross compiler, > so I'll have to either start a native reghunt or fi

[Bug target/41930] [4.5 regression] cc1 SEGV compiling maxval_r16.c

2009-11-04 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-04 18:15 --- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] cc1 SEGV compiling maxval_r16.c > I'll build a cross compiler from i386-pc-solaris2.10 and see if I can > reproduce the problem there. Unfortunately, the probl

[Bug target/41930] [4.5 regression] cc1 SEGV compiling maxval_r16.c

2009-11-04 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2009-11-04 17:52 --- Subject: [4.5 regression] cc1 SEGV compiling maxval_r16.c Unfortunately, gdb 7.0 crashes as well, so I cannot investigate the problem this way. But I've been able to produce a minimized testcase,