https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65782
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz ---
Hmm, that behavior of gcc seems to be indeed pretty bad. The SEH commands for
registers above index 15 (0..15) for xmm? are indeed undefined, and even worse,
can't be coded proper into the seh table correctly.
An
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56186
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-04 16:37:51
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Mon Feb 4 16:37:44 2013
New Revision: 195721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195721
Log:
PR target/56186
* config/i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56186
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-06 12:01:32
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 6 12:01:20 2013
New Revision: 195803
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195803
Log:
2013-02-06 Rainer Emrich
PR targe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56227
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-07 10:15:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Adding some CCs.
The two changes about using HOST_LONG_LONG_FORMAT are fine.
The use of HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_HEX_PURE in lto/lto.c is indeed wrong. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55493
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-12 15:27:45
UTC ---
Well, I re-tried to reproduce this issue with current 4.8 gcc version (native).
As before, I can't reproduce that issue. Anyway I don't get what report was
actual doing differentl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #15 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-12 15:32:15
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Feb 12 15:32:01 2013
New Revision: 195980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195980
Log:
PR target/52122
* Makefil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #16 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-12 15:37:09
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Feb 12 15:36:56 2013
New Revision: 195981
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195981
Log:
PR target/52122
* Makefil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #17 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-12 15:39:07
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Feb 12 15:38:57 2013
New Revision: 195982
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195982
Log:
PR target/52122
* Makefil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P5
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #20 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-12 18:02:56
UTC ---
Hmm,
why is NS_RECURSIVE for you an empty? It should become either cp -pR, or be
equal to content of LN_S.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #21 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-12 18:04:53
UTC ---
"LN_S_RECURSIVE" I mean.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P5 |P2
Status|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #32 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-13 10:19:35
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:19:26 2013
New Revision: 196002
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196002
Log:
PR target/52122
* Makefile.in (LN_S_RECUS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #33 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-13 10:20:49
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:20:30 2013
New Revision: 196003
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196003
Log:
PR target/52122
* Makefile.in (LN_S_RECUS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #34 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-13 10:21:35
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Feb 13 10:21:25 2013
New Revision: 196004
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196004
Log:
PR target/52122
* Makefile.in (LN_S_RECUS
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
--- Comment #11 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-14 08:45:16
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Feb 14 08:45:09 2013
New Revision: 196046
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196046
Log:
2013-02-14 Rainer Emrich
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52123
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-14 13:04:15
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Feb 14 13:04:10 2013
New Revision: 196051
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196051
Log:
2013-02-14 Rainer Emrich
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56465
Bug #: 56465
Summary: Strange warning about variable modified range
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56475
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-27 19:45:53
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> We had an AC_TRY_RUN test, but such kind of test give a lot of problems and we
> removed it. We had:
>
> AC_TRY_RUN([#include
> int main(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56475
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-28 08:43:30
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I agree. Care to send a patch for that?
Well, something like this should fix the issue:
Index: acinclude.m4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56465
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2013-02-28 15:56:09
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> >it is actual a constant.
>
> I don't think it is a integer constant expression though as it contains a cast
> from a pointer type to an integer type.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56475
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz 2013-03-01 10:23:28
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Mar 1 10:23:21 2013
New Revision: 196371
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196371
Log:
PR libstdc++/56475
* acinclude.m4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56475
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52872
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz 2013-03-03 10:29:42
UTC ---
Yes, patch looks reasonable. Please sent it to patch ML.
This patch is small, so it is ok, but do you have already made paper-work with
FSF for gcc?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56644
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2013-03-22 06:53:17
UTC ---
Sorry can't reproduce your issue. I tested it with 4.6 up to 4.8 gcc version
'gcc -c -o t.o subsub/t.c -I.'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56038
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56719
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
Bug #: 56742
Summary: Optimization bug lead to uncaught throw
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2013-03-26 21:14:23
UTC ---
Hmm, yes indeed it is the -freorder-blocks option. One solution is to disallow
after reload for SEH-target to modify jumps.
The following patch fixes the issue for me.
Index:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz 2013-03-27 09:40:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Hmm, yes indeed it is the -freorder-blocks option. One solution is to
> > disallow after reload for SEH-target to modify ju
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz 2013-03-27 14:43:24
UTC ---
Well, this issue is related to SEH exceptions. So it is pretty clear, why you
don't see it for linux.
It is serious bug for 4.8 gcc. From user's perspective this is a regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56742
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.1
Summary|Optimizatio
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||WORKSFORME
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2013-03-28 09:25:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> There is no header in standard C++, so any code written in the
> last 15 years should not
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-03 08:07:41
UTC ---
This bug is fixed on trunk (upcoming 4.9). The patch won't be backported.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56870
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-08 06:51:58
UTC ---
Hmm, this bug looks like a duplicate of PR/56742
Could you test if provided patch in PR/56742 fixes your issue?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56932
Bug #: 56932
Summary: [regression 4.8]: vrp and/or niter-related wrong-code
bug
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56932
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-12 18:31:05
UTC ---
Well, indeed increasing the array-size helps to avoid this issue. Nevertheless
I don't get why it produces wrong code for argument of call of function t here.
That there is a out-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56975
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56975
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-18 18:19:28
UTC ---
Created attachment 29898
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29898
Patch for supporting cygwin32's SYSV_ABI proper
This patch should fix the reported issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56975
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-19 08:18:13
UTC ---
At what place it freezes? Can you provide a testcase? Are you sure it is
really related to the patch? What makes you think that?
All in all, what I mean about those questions i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55445
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-23 07:25:49
UTC ---
*** Bug 57040 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-23 07:25:49
UTC ---
This issue is a dup. It seems that Ada is the only code-path still having this
error, but anyway it isn't helpful to o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57119
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-30 10:42:28
UTC ---
No this change wasn't hastily nor wrong. Actual the change makes things
compliant to logic already used for cygwin for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57119
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57120
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57120
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-30 13:34:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll export the following symbos:
>
> [Ordinal/Name Pointer] Table
> [ 0] _Unwind_Backtrace
> [ 1] _Unwind_DeleteEx
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57119
--- Comment #12 from Kai Tietz 2013-04-30 13:49:25
UTC ---
Hmm, I don't see in config.log any difference to the variant I have built on my
box. Shared is actual enabled in you config.log for libstdc++-v3. So DLL
should be built, if you d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57212
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57212
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57220
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57220
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ktietz70 at googlemail dot |
|com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57220
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz 2013-05-08 20:04:56
UTC ---
Fine, by which date this version was built?
I am pretty curious to see that issue for 4.9 due I don't happen to see it on
my box.
Could you check, if libmingwex.a contains for you the symb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57220
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz 2013-05-08 21:02:08
UTC ---
Well, you should us the nm tool to check for existance of a symbol. Grepping
for strings might lead you to wrong direction.
I don't see anything obviously wrong on you temp-file. The on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56975
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz ---
go language isn't supported for mingw targets (see PR/47726).
The other languages should work with newer gcc versions.
gcc 4.6 isn't no longer maintained,
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz ---
There is no such triplet x86_64-pc-mingw64 support.
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz ---
The remaining issue about LN -s is also mentioned in PR/52122 report. So I
close this bug as fixed.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ---
This issue is fixed back atleast to gcc 4.7, so I close this bug as fixed.
||2013-05-15
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ---
Yes, this happens for function using eax as input-argument hand using
stack-allocation. btw it isn't specif
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54314
--- Comment #14 from Kai Tietz 2012-09-26 20:09:16
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Hey P, I think you mean:
>
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
> b/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/g
> index 5265b21..396feec 100644
> -
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2010-12-17 20:42:35
UTC ---
Sorry, I assume as you didn't reported any updates for this bug, that your
issue is already solved. Without gcc version and at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36834
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz 2010-12-18 10:16:16
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sat Dec 18 10:16:13 2010
New Revision: 168019
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168019
Log:
2010-12-18 Kai Tietz
PR target/36834
* co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36834
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46917
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47055
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15774
--- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz 2010-12-25 10:41:09
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sat Dec 25 10:41:05 2010
New Revision: 168241
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168241
Log:
2010-12-25 Kai Tietz
PR c++/15774
* decl.c
||2010.12.27 10:27:32
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2010-12-27 10:27:32
UTC ---
Patch sent to ML
Index: libgcov.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47050
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz 2010-12-30 11:51:18
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Dec 30 11:51:14 2010
New Revision: 168339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168339
Log:
2010-12-30 Kai Tietz
PR testsuite/47050
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2010-12-30 11:53:05
UTC ---
Fixed on trunk at revision 168339.
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2010-12-31 16:06:35
UTC ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-12/msg02016.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38662
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-01 11:05:45
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Sat Jan 1 11:05:41 2011
New Revision: 168389
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168389
Log:
ChangeLog gcc/
2011-01-01 Kai Tietz
PR target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38662
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||INVALID
--- Comment #14 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-02 14:05:53
UTC ---
Well, this bug is configure/environment related and not a bug of gcc AFAICS.
So I close this as invalid.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46589
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-03 14:18:45
UTC ---
The issue here is AC_CHECK_FILE, which is documented to not work for
cross-compiling scenario. By replacing this to test -f, it should working for
native and cross-compile.
The following p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-03 14:46:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The issue here is AC_CHECK_FILE, which is documented to not work for
> cross-compiling scenario. By replacing this to test -f, it should working for
> native and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-04 13:28:11
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Kai, in order to help people actually using cross-compilation a lot, please
> install your patchlet. Actual patch pre-approved. Then we can figure out
> somethi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47145
--- Comment #13 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-04 17:59:45
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Jan 4 17:59:39 2011
New Revision: 168474
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168474
Log:
2011-01-04 Kai Tietz
PR libstdc++/47145
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47055
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-04 18:05:11
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Jan 4 18:05:06 2011
New Revision: 168475
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168475
Log:
2011-01-04 Kai Tietz
PR bootstrap/47055
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47055
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47211
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
--- Comment #3 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-07 19:48:18
UTC ---
I am just about to test a patch for this. Java misses to build some type-nodes,
which are necessary for building the va_list type. It seems so that
unsigned_type_node is the culprit here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
--- Comment #5 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-07 21:11:52
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Jan 7 21:11:48 2011
New Revision: 168585
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168585
Log:
2011-01-07 Kai Tietz
PR bootstrap/47215
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47209
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-10 16:23:23
UTC ---
Issue here is that s390 uses for its va_list_node_type a record containing
long_integer_type_node type, which doesn't get initialized by java's decl.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
--- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-11 12:06:38
UTC ---
Patch already posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00575.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
--- Comment #10 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-11 14:51:17
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Tue Jan 11 14:51:07 2011
New Revision: 168662
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168662
Log:
2011-01-11 Kai Tietz
PR bootstrap/47215
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47215
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47209
--- Comment #6 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-12 17:02:51
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Wed Jan 12 17:02:41 2011
New Revision: 168718
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168718
Log:
2011-01-12 Kai Tietz
PR debug/47209
* dwar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47209
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47213
--- Comment #1 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-13 20:02:01
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Thu Jan 13 20:01:57 2011
New Revision: 168763
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168763
Log:
2011-01-13 Kai Tietz
PR c++/47213
* g++.dg
||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution||FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz 2011-01-13 20:05:18
UTC ---
Fixed.
1 - 100 of 846 matches
Mail list logo
