https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Kulik ---
Eric and Rainer, thank you both very much for all that testing and the fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #20 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d238c84025aaef1641e4000bd2a8f4328b474dd
commit r14-10119-g1d238c84025aaef1641e4000bd2a8f4328b474dd
Author: Eric Botcazou
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
[...]
>>> The sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu one will be running f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> The sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap (both multilibs) has just completed
>> successfully without regressions.
>>
>> However, sparc/sol2.h ne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap (both multilibs) has just completed
> successfully without regressions.
>
> However, sparc/sol2.h needed an #undef to fix
>
> In file included from ./tm.h:27,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> Do you happen to have some spare cycles to conduct a testi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> OK, thanks, let's go ahead for Solaris then, but I agree that we'd better do
> nothing for other platforms at this point.
Right, I forgot th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, thanks, let's go ahead for Solaris then, but I agree that we'd better do
nothing for other platforms at this point.
Do you happen to have some spare cycles to conduct a testing cycle of the above
tenta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Rainer, what's your take on this? Should we proceed and change the ABI on
> Solaris for GCC 14?
I think so, yes:
* Binary compatibility wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
Rainer, what's your take on this? Should we proceed and change the ABI on
Solaris for GCC 14?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Kulik ---
> This is a bit of circular reasoning but, if the rule had been crystal clear,
> GCC would have implemented it at some point during the last quarter of
> century.
I see. I guess it's also not a common enough
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kulik ---
Sorry for longer response.
I asked internally again and was told by a colleague who was in the room when
the spec was created, that: "the intent was (and is) that the individual
elements/atoms/fundamental ty
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Thank you for the proposed fix! I tested it with several programs that I
> used to find/reproduce the issue and it seems to work now (I talked about
> this with Rainer initially).
OK, thanks for the testi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Hmm, I just realized that you referred to the same sections, so my previous
> comment might not make it clearer...
Yes, the fields in question have array types so the rules about scalar values
do not obvi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kulik ---
Hmm, I just realized that you referred to the same sections, so my previous
comment might not make it clearer...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
Jakub Kulik changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub.kulik at oracle dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 57806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57806&action=edit
Tentative fix
18 matches
Mail list logo
