https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Reduced test-case:
$ cat ./tmp0/024.ii
template
struct __enable_if
{ };
template
struct __enable_if
{ typedef _Tp __type; };
$ valgrind /tmp/cc1plus ./tmp0/024.ii
==25053== Memcheck, a m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #12)
> The way I've done ppc32 bootstraps is to have a 32bit root filesystem,
> installed on a 64bit system. I then chroot into that 32bit root filesystem
> and I can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #12 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #10 from Mart
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
You can also run big-endian kvm guests on a little-endian host.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> I can't reproduce that with a cross compiler and I noticed that one needs to
> bootstrap compiler. --disable-bootstrap seems fine. I don't have a handy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Just to quote configury used:
../configure --prefix=/usr --infodir=/usr/share/info --mandir=/usr/share/man
--libdir=/usr/lib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
--enable-languages=c,c++,objc,fortran,obj-c++,ada,go --disa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> One question I have is which stage fails? Is it stage 2 or stage 3?
> Because if it is stage 3, then stage 2 is miscompiled which is causing a
> different misco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Created attachment 47974 [details]
> > Reduced test-case
> I doubt this is a reduced testcase. It is a reduced test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47973|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
One question I have is which stage fails? Is it stage 2 or stage 3? Because
if it is stage 3, then stage 2 is miscompiled which is causing a different
miscompile in stage 3.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build, wrong-code
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||ppc-linux-gnu
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94042
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 47974
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47974&action=edit
Reduced test-case
16 matches
Mail list logo
