https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|15.2
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #25 from Owen A. ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #24)
> (In reply to Owen A. from comment #23)
> > (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #22)
> > > (In reply to Owen A. from comment #12)
> > > > I can't replicate th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #24 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to Owen A. from comment #23)
> (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #22)
> > (In reply to Owen A. from comment #12)
> > > I can't replicate this on my end anymore -- is it still present on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #23 from Owen A. ---
(In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #22)
> (In reply to Owen A. from comment #12)
> > I can't replicate this on my end anymore -- is it still present on x86_64?
>
> That's a surprising statement, given tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/Rust-GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #21 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79d2c3089f480738613b7d338d86d8be710f8158
commit r16-42-g79d2c3089f480738613b7d338d86d8be710f8158
Author: Thomas Schwinge
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
See Als
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Solaris results (64-bit-default only; there's no 32-bit Solaris target
support in rustc/cargo) are pretty weird (all on 20250411). In all
cases, I'm testing both 64 and 32-bit multilib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #18 from Mark Wielaard ---
That said, I suddenly see a fedora-ppc64le builder fail:
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/19/builds/2183
# of unexpected successes 6
Bunsen links:
https://builder.sourceware.org/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #17 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Owen A. from comment #16)
> *linked builders
What exactly are you asking for? The builder runs are linked aren't they?
They have stdout logs and through the bunsen link you can find full .sum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #16 from Owen A. ---
*linked builders
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #15 from Owen A. ---
https://code.wildebeest.org/git/mirror/gcc/commit/?id=89ca1e3cb697a87f02682a1fb1f62f02d0671c57
Wildebeest seems to have the patch. It seems like all of the linked tests are
failing for other reasons, though. Doe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #14 from Mark Wielaard ---
https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders?tags=gccrust
Little endian gccrust-debian-i386 gccrust-fedora-arm64 gccrust-fedora-ppc64le
gccrust-fedora-x86_64 seems green
Big endian gccrust-debian-pp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #13 from Sam James ---
I'm not seeing it anywhere, and I consistently was before.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #12 from Owen A. ---
I can't replicate this on my end anymore -- is it still present on x86_64?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
Thomas Schwinge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2025-04-06 00:00:00 |2025-4-13
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #9 from Sam James ---
It is, as r15-9287-g89ca1e3cb697a8.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Schwinge ---
GCC/Rust master branch commit b9aaa6192f3310a0cb26f7773b31703a8c9c544c "nr2.0:
Improve test script" you mean? Yes, likely -- but that's not yet in upstream
GCC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #7 from Pierre-Emmanuel Patry ---
89ca1e3cb697a87f02682a1fb1f62f02d0671c57 Should have fixed this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-04
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #5 from Pierre-Emmanuel Patry ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> I wonder if it is showing up due to running the testsuite with -jN
It is indeed showing up with -jN on my machine. Good call!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
I wonder if it is showing up due to running the testsuite with -jN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||testsuite-fail
--- Comment #3 from Sam Jame
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Pierre-Emmanuel Patry from comment #1)
> There is something funny happening here because canonical_paths1.rs should
> not pass, nr2 tests are a list of test with an additional flag. We're using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #1 from Pierre-Emmanuel Patry ---
There is something funny happening here because canonical_paths1.rs should not
pass, nr2 tests are a list of test with an additional flag. We're using it to
reduce the gap between both name resolutio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
27 matches
Mail list logo
