https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91028
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I believe this was fixed a while ago by adding the loop. It no longer fails
> with -fno-use-linker-plugin. Is it OK on Solaris?
It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94249
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> It will be definitely caused by my g:c8429c2aba80f845939ffa6b2cfe8a0be1b50078.
[...]
> So is the reason usage of ld.gold? Is the defau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94249
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
> Ah, ok. Can you please do some basic debugging what's hapenning?
Can you provide some pointers where to look? I'm totally unfa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94239
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Yes, see https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/542459.html
> Sorry for that.
I've just applied your patch (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe ---
> unpatched GCC master, gcc-9.x, gcc-8.x and gcc-7.5 work for me with any SDK >=
> Xcode commandline tools 11.3b.
I've re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94249
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
>> Can you provide some pointers where to look? I'm totally unfamiliar
>> with this code. Maybe it's easier for you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #25 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #24)
>> > --- Comment #23 from Iain Sandoe ---
>> > unpatched
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94249
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> Fine, thanks. Just FYI, I built binutils master to check if the issue
> also exists
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #17 from Iain Buclaw ---
> The commit for it is here.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=98eb7b2ed249537d12004f2c58583140ac25d666
I just noticed t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90719
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #8)
[...]
> Oops, I must have both misunderstood your original bug report (you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92177
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
> which means we are actually vectorizing a multiplication. Like with
> the following. Rainer - can you test this?
[...]
Wor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94703
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
> Hmm, OK looks like memcpy is not folded, likely because the source is
> not known to be appropriately aligned.
[...]
> sho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> How did CET changes add -march=i486 -mtune=i686? Can you bisect to the commit?
Done: the reghunt identified
commit 4c1a5d8b71e29b71e0bc1004480c12c5fc427cb7
Author: H.J. Lu
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95413
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
> I am testing this:
[...]
Seems to work fine: at least configuring and building the 32 and 64-bit
libgomp multilibs now succeeds.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> Can you please test the current master?
> This patch could fix it: a04b7410d305800b747963ab940d2b1a602b5ddf
Unfortunately, it doesn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
> Is there a compile farm machine I can test it on?
Sure: gcc211 should do the trick.
> Btw. can you please make a brief analysis why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95494
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
>> > --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
>> > Is there
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95575
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Ah, for some reason I thought that moving the dejagnu .exp scripts from
> top-level gdc.test to one per each subdirectory would remove
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96028
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> Do I need some special flags?
The -m64 is crucial: the test PASSes for me for the default -m32.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95706
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn ---
> I added Solaris to the list of targets that see the error on line 5. Add it
> wherever your target sees it.
This has almost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu ---
> Do -fpatchable-function-entry and -mfentry work on Solaris?
I don't have the slightest idea what that would mean, and the
descript
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
> -fpatchable-function-entry and -mfentry generate special instruction
> sequence at function entry. Does Solaris support such special
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
--- Comment #28 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #26)
>> > --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu ---
>> > -fpatchable-fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
--- Comment #30 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #28)
>> > --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu ---
>> > (In reply to r...@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu ---
>> If this is a Linux-only feature, shouldn't the tests rather be
>> restricted to Linux instead? It certainly also fails o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96180
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> Hmm, yeah - the testcase assumes the target upps alignment of 'a' a bit from
> its requirement of 'int' ... guess
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94324
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is it a fortran bug or a bug in a Solaris lib?
The latter, I suspect (or rather: the Studio compiler used to build
them). H
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #6)
>> The test also FAIL on 64-bit SPARC with an ICE/SEGV:
>>
>> 0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #9)
>> >> 0x67606b build_round_expr
>> >>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> This may lead to a total mess, and I am unable to test it, but can you try:
I just ran bootstraps on both sparc-sun-solar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96983
--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #14)
>> > --- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
> I'm going to install a patch.
The SPARC failues are fixed indeed.
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91027
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Hi,
> this patch triggers another confusion in ipa-devirt.
> It tries to build type inheritnace graph but since D frotnend pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Joel Hutton ---
> As this fails when it was introduced, and I don't have a SPARC machine to test
> on, I suggest making this XFAIL on sparc.
I&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Joel Hutton ---
> Hi Rainer
>
> I set up an account with cfarm, and tested on gcc202, the test fails because
> on
> SPARC, no constructor is g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92527
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
> I have a patch for the bb-slp-21.c failure. Are you still seeing the
> bb-slp-div-2.c failure? I can't re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92391
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Joel Hutton ---
> Weird, I tested on gcc202.
[...]
> # of unsupported tests 2
I see the same when testing this single test individually.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92002
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
> Did this somehow get fixed (the bootstrap?) or require some nonstandard
> configuration?
Not at all. I still cannot make any sen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92303
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> There's no RA commits in that range, further bisection is needed.
Done now. I've found r272742 to be the culprit:
201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93316
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
> Sorry about the failing tests.
>
> As noted in comment #4, r10-6152-gda7cf663b75513e4d2baf5a579ffcb4f8a61193b
> hopefully fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92002
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> -Wno-error=uninitialized might be more appropriate for the workaround.
In fact one needs both -Wno-error=uninitialized and
-Wno-error
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So you could just disable asan and keep ubsan (set ASAN_SUPPORTED=no in
> libsanitizer/configure.tgt for a particular darwin OS versio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Sandoe ---
> These systems are EOL so we can't expect any fixes to the systems themselves.
>
> The question is "is the latest impor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93961
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Please check that it is really compiled at -O1.
It is: no optimization option beside -O is used.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93731
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
[...
>> Of course, trying to workaround kerne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-11 13:47:21 UTC ---
The error can be reproduced on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with gas by
disabling weakref support, i.e. setting gcc_cv_as_weakref=no during the
build. So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56171
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-12 14:43:41 UTC ---
> --- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor 2013-02-11
> 19:16:41 UTC ---
[...]
> Note that this test case execs itself in a separate process, so w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-13 11:19:37 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-12
> 19:27:16 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #0)
>> The test is l.34:
>>
>> 34
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56204
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-14 10:13:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus 2013-02-13
> 12:06:02 UTC ---
> Thanks for testing. It looks as if it should have been FIXED by the committed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #30 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-18 16:16:18 UTC ---
I've run another reghunt, which revealed that the 4.8 regression was
caused by this patch:
2012-05-23 Jan Hubicka
* tree.h (alias_diag_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56320
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-21 16:23:52 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2013-02-20
> 19:46:42 UTC ---
> Should be fixed now, I hope.
Unfortunately, this is not enough.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55308
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-22 15:48:00 UTC ---
There seems to be something totally confused here: when linking
libgcc_s.so, there's a reference to libstdc++.so:
[...]
lc && rm -f /libg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55308
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-02-25 13:29:36 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from N8GCBP7SHNBTI79GINADGKJPRTLOCO2A at cmx dot ietfng.org
> 2013-02-23 03:13:27 UTC ---
> If I do not remove the -32 from conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-03-26 10:18:00 UTC ---
Unfortunately, Andrew Pinski's patch from PR debug/51471 doesn't help
this time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #36 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-05 10:41:42 UTC ---
With the new reduced testcase I'm now also able to reproduce the failure
on an x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu x mips-sgi-irix6.5 cross, configured
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #37 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-05 14:16:12 UTC ---
I forgot to mention that for the build to succeed you also need r184239:
r184239
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-11 14:30:49 UTC ---
> --- Comment #39 from Bernd Schmidt 2013-04-11
> 11:35:33 UTC ---
[...]
> Ok, the --enable-checking made it reproducible. The lesson here is th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #41 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-15 09:27:09 UTC ---
> I'm currently running a bootstrap of gcc 4.7.3 with this patch applied
> and without any special --enable-checking=release. It just entered
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-04-15 12:51:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-04-12
> 16:13:20 UTC ---
> Can this be reproduced with 4.7.3, 4.8.0 or trunk?
At most on the 4.7 br
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-05-07 14:57:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2013-05-06
> 16:55:04 UTC ---
>> This doesn't happen in sparcv9-sun-solaris2* or i386-pc-solaris2*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57188
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-05-07 15:09:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2013-05-07
> 15:06:45 UTC ---
>> But what's the justification for the relevant change, which wasn&#x
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41590
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-05-08 09:17:11 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan 2013-05-08
> 07:05:37 UTC ---
> Which version of GCC are you using?
This even affects current mainline.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56033
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2013-04-22 14:22:15 UTC ---
> Following the recipe in comment #5, the following patch
[...]
> fixes the corresponding fail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Within the last week (20130503 to 20150510), the failure has changed
into an ICE:
-FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20091219 cp_lto_20091219_0.o-cp_lto_20091219_0.o link, -O3
-fl
to
+FAIL: g++.dg/lto
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-08-09 10:45:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from damz 2012-08-08 17:40:37 UTC
> ---
> How I wish that the supportability matrix was published.
I hope you understand tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #33 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:42:44 UTC ---
> --- Comment #26 from Hin-Tak Leung
> 2012-08-30 14:19:16 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #22)
>
>> The sentence about newer versions is there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:44:22 UTC ---
> --- Comment #27 from Hin-Tak Leung
> 2012-08-30 14:56:46 UTC ---
> FWIW, I just filed the MFPR 3.1.x "make check" issue:
>
> https:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:49:28 UTC ---
> --- Comment #28 from Hin-Tak Leung
> 2012-08-30 17:32:35 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #22)
>
>> > There are two curious things:
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #36 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:51:58 UTC ---
> --- Comment #30 from Hin-Tak Leung
> 2012-09-01 08:18:06 UTC ---
> I commented out gcc-4.7.1/config/bootstrap-debug.mk :
>
> #STAGE2_CFLAGS += -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #37 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-14 13:54:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #32 from Hin-Tak Leung
> 2012-09-01 11:22:55 UTC ---
> Went back to 4.5.0 and commenting out '#STAGE2_CFLAGS += -gtoggle' in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-20 09:05:40 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-19
> 12:23:01 UTC ---
> Still broken?
Still broken on both i386-pc-solaris2.9 and sparc-sun-sola
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-26 13:58:58 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-26
> 13:54:35 UTC ---
> This means we have a stale gimple_block that is no longer contained in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-27 07:57:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-09-26
> 14:13:31 UTC ---
> Created attachment 28283
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-09-27 15:59:38 UTC ---
> --- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-09-27
> 13:28:12 UTC ---
> Hmm, strange. What if you just make a change like this:
>
> @@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-04 12:41:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2012-09-28
> 08:54:51 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #4)
>> The fix for PR bootstrap/54688 also fixed thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45508
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-04 12:46:34 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from gellert at dkrz dot de 2012-09-25 17:00:22 UTC ---
[...]
>> I agree that gcc/g++/... not adding needed RPATHs to it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54869
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-09 15:05:31 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Ulrich Drepper
> 2012-10-09 11:23:41 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #0)
>> The new ext/random/simd_fast_mersenne
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54868
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-10-11 09:05:18 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse 2012-10-10
> 04:58:40 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
>> Maybe moving the test from tree-ssa/ to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54718
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-11-07 13:46:39 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-07
> 13:31:26 UTC ---
> So, is this now fixed?
If this is really just the same issue as PR bootst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53518
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-11-08 12:27:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-07
> 18:20:16 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #7)
[...]
> I don't see such a failure in
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-12-17 16:09:09 UTC ---
> --- Comment #6 from Benjamin Kosnik 2010-12-16
> 22:49:23 UTC ---
>
> Does this still happen if -g is removed? (Via -g0)
I've manually
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-12-17 17:02:53 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini
> 2010-12-17 17:00:59 UTC ---
> Maybe I'm missing something: can't we just add -g0 to the dg-options st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-07 19:16:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2011-01-05 22:31:14 UTC ---
>> * We should use i?86*-*-* (or perhaps just i?86-*-*, I see no reason
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47219
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-14 18:27:40 UTC ---
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap with Go included succeeded now (with a
couple of libgo patches already posted), make check still running, but
gcc/testsuite/go
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47491
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-27 15:57:09 UTC ---
Just FYI: as a quick hack, I've added -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600 to AM_CPPFLAGS
in Makefile.in. This allowed me to finish the build. While this should
also wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47491
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-27 16:28:39 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-01-27
> 16:10:41 UTC ---
> Some git-grepping showed that at least libjava has in configure.ac
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44174
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-28 12:40:52 UTC ---
> --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2011-01-28
> 12:36:54 UTC ---
>> Between 20110121 and 20110127, the new gcc.target/i386/asm-6.c test started
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47400
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-26 15:33:03 UTC ---
From my reading of libiconv 1.13.1 libcharset/tools/{irix-6.5,
osf1-5.1}, it seems that there isn't any such locale. If this cannot be
helped, it seems th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44174
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-28 13:04:36 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou 2011-01-28
> 12:45:43 UTC ---
>> You're right: I somehow misread the PR and though the test had already
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45325
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-28 15:15:37 UTC ---
Is this going to be fixed for 4.6.0 or should we XFAIL the test? This
PR has been open for 5 months now.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47515
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-31 15:11:15 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ralf Wildenhues 2011-01-28
> 18:53:54 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #0)
>> * Building libgo still depends on a linker sup
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40183
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-02-02 18:01:11 UTC ---
> It looks like this is resolved with binutils-2.21. I used the gld from
> binutils-2.21 with the .o files produced by gas in binutils-2.20.1 and the
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47508
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-02-03 10:13:18 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-02-02
> 10:05:24 UTC ---
> And now a new version of that patch has been checked in. Can you verify if
> th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56033
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
[...]
>> I've included the complete patch in i386-pc-solaris2.* bootstraps, too,
>> and saw no regressions,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Thank you. It seems that the weakref is simply not output into the file, so we
> end up with undefined call.
Which may or may not be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
> (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #1)
>> I solved the infinite loop problem on plugin enabled setups with
>> http://gcc.gnu.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Hi,
> the following patch sets IDENTIFIER_TRANSPARENT_ALIAS correctly from
> lto-symtab
> (correct fix should do the same for v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57434
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> Working in 4.8 and 4.9?
Working in both.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I'd expect that: both the Solaris and Darwin assemblers have no weakref
support, so the results should be the same.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57450
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> Use absu_hwi
That works, getting me into stage 2. I'll let the bootstrap finish to
see if anything else crops up, then commit th
1 - 100 of 1403 matches
Mail list logo
