http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57366
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Works fine on i386-pc-solaris2.10 with Sun as.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57473
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth ---
> Also fails on Solaris 9 with Sun as, will check if current mainline works
> again.
Both i386-pc-solaris2.9 and sparc-sun-solaris2.9 b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #39 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #36 from Jan Hubicka ---
> I am having problem to reproduce it on a cross compiler. I assume you have
> non-plugin-enable LD setup, right?
The failure happens
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #38 from Jan Hubicka ---
>> Unfortunately, that doesn't easily backport to the 4.8 branch since that
>> lacks
>> alias and alias_target in stru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57413
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> Closing this bug was premature: as I've mentioned before, I've been
>> working on a patch to detect if th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #4)
>> I can see the same problem under Linux (gcc110.fsffrance.org).
>
> In case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
>> Certainly not: IRIX isn't PowerPC but MIPS!
>
> OK, th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2013-01-15 18:14:17 UTC ---
> This is also seen on darwin due to
>
>To make this test pass, one need to have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58108
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Does this bug still reproduce (I fixed problem related to x86 local calls that
> may fix this too)
The failure still exists in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55637
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Matthias Klose ---
> Mark's patch is in binutils 2.23.x, but the testcase is still failing on
> x86_64
> linux.
Right, same problem with binutils
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50061
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-17 13:52:58 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> 2011-08-12 20:26:35 UTC ---
> Note that I posted a patch for this last weekend:
>
> http:/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-24 10:43:58 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Uros Bizjak 2011-08-23
> 18:16:49 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #2)
>> Created attachment 25058 [details]
>> Proposed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-24 10:47:56 UTC ---
At least rebuilding cc1 with the patched builtins.c doesn't make a
difference.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50166
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-25 13:40:57 UTC ---
I've just checked that it still occurs with current mainline. I'm
running a reghunt to identify the culprit.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50083
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-25 15:29:38 UTC ---
I can now also reproduce the failure on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu:
cc1 -quiet -O2 -m32 iround.i -muclibc
With the default (-mglibc), it doesn't occur.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43734
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-26 13:22:58 UTC ---
Not easily, because I don't have an installed version with GNU ld
around, and haven't figured out all the options necessary to compile and
link with an u
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-30 12:25:53 UTC ---
I find the following trees when error is hit for the first time:
(gdb) p type
$1 = (tree) 0xfba11140
(gdb) pt
unit size
align 32 symtab 0 alias
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50574
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-30 12:52:09 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-30
> 12:46:06 UTC ---
[...]
> Ok, that makes sense. I'll test a patch.
Great, thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50575
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-09-30 14:39:28 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-09-30
> 10:06:48 UTC ---
> Please add proper options/prune for your target to avoid these ABI messages
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50655
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 15:16:16 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from David S. Miller 2011-10-07
> 15:01:55 UTC ---
> Please try to figure out why the configure test is not detecting VIS3
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50655
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 16:51:36 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from David S. Miller 2011-10-07
> 16:45:52 UTC ---
> Thanks, I'll add the necessary register directives and work on making t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 16:58:40 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07
> 16:53:59 UTC ---
> Mine. See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00597.html .
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 17:03:31 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07
> 17:00:59 UTC ---
> Hmm, I can't build go due to:
> ../../../gcc/libgo/runtime/sigqueue.g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50638
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-07 17:05:11 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Michael Matz 2011-10-07
> 17:02:00 UTC ---
> Okay, so it's really the emutlv_v variables. That should be fixed by the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49319
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-10 14:26:46 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-10
> 11:50:37 UTC ---
> Does it still happen?
Just, just had it in this weekend's boot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-12 15:37:46 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2011-10-12 13:08:48
> UTC ---
> The reghunt is not yet complete, but the bad patch is between r179536 (good)
> and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-12 16:53:32 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-12
> 16:46:23 UTC ---
> This doesn't seem to happen with a cross compiler :(
Drats. I've run t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50719
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-14 15:16:02 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Sean McGovern 2011-10-14
> 13:31:13 UTC ---
> Rainer, any ideas?
Not without considerably more details:
* how was gcc configured
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50715
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-14 16:02:16 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-10-14 15:32:24 UTC ---
> By the way, a couple of weeks ago I'm pretty sure to have read mentioned a
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-17 11:30:24 UTC ---
Bernd,
IRIX 6.5 bootstrap is now broken for more than a week. How should we
proceed with this?
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-17 14:52:49 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-17
> 11:40:25 UTC ---
> AFAIK there's no IRIX6.5 machine in the compile farm. Can you debug a bit at
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50715
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-17 14:55:14 UTC ---
> --- Comment #10 from Sean McGovern 2011-10-17
> 13:18:51 UTC ---
> Successfully bootstrapped 180071 this morning -- not sure which change fixed
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-17 15:50:06 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-17
> 15:04:17 UTC ---
> Well, shooting in the dark, let's get a few preliminaries out of the way -
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-17 17:13:10 UTC ---
> --- Comment #14 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-17
> 16:34:42 UTC ---
> Ok, so there are two restore_state notes following each other; note 374 and
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-18 15:37:49 UTC ---
> --- Comment #16 from Bernd Schmidt 2011-10-17
> 17:37:11 UTC ---
> Sorry, I was being imprecise - only the instances where we generate notes 374
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-24 11:43:38 UTC ---
Bernd,
could you make some progress on this PR? IRIX bootstrap is broken for
more than two weeks now.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49316
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-26 09:22:41 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Graham Reed 2011-10-25 20:04:32
> UTC ---
> This may be the same fault I'm seeing on AIX with GCC 4.6.1--does Tru64 use an
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49316
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-26 15:52:07 UTC ---
> I made the patch against 4.6.1, and have run bootstrap and testing on AIX 5.3
> TL4. I was able to apply it unchanged against trunk r180430, but have n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50822
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-10-27 11:34:47 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-10-27
> 11:28:11 UTC ---
> There is a dup for this bug ... (search for 'SUN as')
Not exactly: tha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50935
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-02 09:18:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-11-01
> 09:27:20 UTC ---
> Confirmed. Can you try writing a dg-effective-target test?
Sure, that's my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-03 15:27:19 UTC ---
> Current SVN fails to build libgcc for an arm-none-eabi target because it can't
> find unwind-arm-common.h:
>
> In file included from
> /wor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50978
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-03 16:46:23 UTC ---
Thanks for the confirmation. I'll submit the patch now.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-03 18:22:16 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from David Edelsohn 2011-11-03
> 18:11:40 UTC ---
> The failure is config/gthr-posix.h is not found in the search path when
> buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-03 19:40:31 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from David Edelsohn 2011-11-03
> 19:28:16 UTC ---
> It's better. It now finds gthr-posix.h. But now it fails with a C++ failur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-04 13:56:30 UTC ---
> --- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn 2011-11-03
> 20:49:52 UTC ---
> Actually, my previous successful bootstrap was for rev 180770. I happened to
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50991
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-04 14:25:44 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Paolo Bonzini 2011-11-04
> 14:23:40 UTC ---
> I think the problem is that "make clean" is not removing libgcc_tm.stamp.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-04 15:10:06 UTC ---
> --- Comment #14 from David Edelsohn 2011-11-04
> 14:59:50 UTC ---
> AIX /usr/include/sys/types.h refers to pthread_once_t
>
> typedef stru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-04 16:30:57 UTC ---
> The incorrect version of atomic.ii includes more code, but nothing specific to
> pthread_once_t. I still am trying to understand the nesting, but is an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50982
--- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-07 16:45:36 UTC ---
> --- Comment #44 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-11-07
> 15:12:26 UTC ---
> Great, thanks - we can leave it open for now until it's fully resolved.
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50822
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-07 17:54:00 UTC ---
> I am testing the attached patch that ought to solve the issue.
A sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap with Sun as is now into stage3, so
this looks quite good so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50822
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-08 12:49:18 UTC ---
The bootstrap has now completed, and although there are a couple of new
failures compared to the last successful bootstrap as of r179988, AFAICS
they are unrelated
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51022
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-08 18:02:13 UTC ---
The port doesn't even build for me as of r181158:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c: In function
'rs6000_option_override_internal&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51022
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-08 18:49:38 UTC ---
> Sorry. Something broke it in a different place before you could get to it. :(
>
> Ralf and I are using different versions of this patch. We need som
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51094
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-11 15:35:14 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill 2011-11-11
> 15:30:50 UTC ---
> Is it fixed now?
Need to check, but the patch also breaks bootstrap on ELF targets
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51094
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-11 15:38:51 UTC ---
> Need to check, but the patch also breaks bootstrap on ELF targets that
> lack stpcpy, like any Solaris < 10:
Correction: < 11.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51094
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-11-11 15:46:33 UTC ---
And it breaks Solaris/SPARC bootstrap with both Sun as and gas. See the
following testcase:
$ cat string.c
int
main (void)
{
return 0;
}
* Wit Sun as, I get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-07 12:37:37 UTC ---
While the checksum files are expected to differ (thus there are only
warnings about them), the size increase looks really strange: in my
current 4.6.4 build on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:08:13 UTC ---
> --- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-04-24
> 16:33:13 UTC ---
> At some point, can you update this bug with the current set of test failures
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:36:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #21 from Hin-Tak Leung
> 2012-05-08 14:15:52 UTC ---
I think there was a misunderstanding: I specificially asked for the
smallest
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49797
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-08 15:54:15 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Matt Hargett 2012-04-23 22:19:35
> UTC ---
> Can you please back port this to 4.6 as well? Running into this on Scientific
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53284
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-09 11:45:10 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Henderson 2012-05-08
> 22:39:35 UTC ---
> Can you investigate why configure decides that __atomic_compare_exchan
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53300
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-11 10:08:11 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka 2012-05-10
> 17:59:46 UTC ---
[...]
> Does the following hack avoid the problem? Perhaps during the years when
> v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53363
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-16 10:51:33 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill 2012-05-15
> 19:09:37 UTC ---
> Yes, the test should only run in 32-bit mode.
>
> For me, on i686-unknown-lin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53474
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-05-25 11:30:08 UTC ---
Sure: a i386-pc-solaris2.10 bootstrap completed with this patch without
issues.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-06-25 15:16:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #13 from Rainer Orth 2012-06-25 14:55:41
> UTC ---
> I'm seeing SEGVs in i386-pc-solaris2.* bootstraps which a reghunt traced back
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53706
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-06-27 09:00:52 UTC ---
> --- Comment #19 from Alexandre Oliva 2012-06-27
> 06:30:05 UTC ---
> Alas, it doesn't work on i686 or x86_64: the free_alloc_pool in vt_finalize
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51094
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-07-09 16:28:24 UTC ---
> Passed testing on i386, bootstrapped fine on x86_64 multilib, I'd appreciate
> testing on 32-bit multilib platform.
I've just completed a r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54155
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-08-06 12:20:47 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-08-02
> 15:17:25 UTC ---
>> If I replace only the ld from GNU Binutils 2.21.x with the ld from 2.20.x
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-31 18:27:32 UTC ---
> I've still to closer investigate why this happens. I suspect that this
> is also the cause of the IRIX failures (a libgo build is currently
> ru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #30 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-01 10:23:33 UTC ---
> --- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-01-31
> 19:09:00 UTC ---
> (N.B. that ChangeLog entry cited the wrong PR)
I know, I've already
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-03 09:48:15 UTC ---
> Since a similar problem exists for darwin11's
> PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER this solution is not OSF-specific. This
> allows config/os/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-03 09:50:39 UTC ---
> --- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-03
> 08:52:17 UTC ---
> Oops, this hunk would be needed too
I know, I already had this in my failed a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52104
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-03 10:21:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-03
> 10:11:40 UTC ---
> Looks as though we need an extra explicit instantiation in src/c++11/future.cc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52104
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-03 10:55:07 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-03
> 10:48:16 UTC ---
> Are you sure this is using native TLS?
Not anymore ;-( While Solaris 8 and 9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52095
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-03 13:06:19 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-03
> 12:50:33 UTC ---
> Untested fix.
I've just re-built cc1 with the patch and re-run the gcc.d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51921
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-07 16:59:32 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-07
> 15:37:54 UTC ---
> Only sparc-sun-solaris2.10 is a primary target at the moment. Rainer,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51921
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-07 17:29:37 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-07
> 17:12:26 UTC ---
>> I'm quite upset about this because the only reason for that reversion
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51753
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-07 18:09:45 UTC ---
> Please look at gcc.log files in your testsuite directory. There are extensive
> single-instruction traces to analyse what went wrong. Comparing your tra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51921
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-08 18:10:31 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-08
> 10:44:51 UTC ---
> Please fill out known-to-work and known-to-fail fields. Was it "working&quo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-10 10:24:36 UTC ---
> caused libstdc++.so symbol versioning to be broken on Solaris. Before the
> patch,
> when compiling locale-const.cc only contains references and defin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52192
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-10 13:59:12 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-09
> 20:01:41 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #0)
>> needs to link with -lthread for __tls_get_addr.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52104
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-10 15:22:41 UTC ---
> --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-06
> 21:37:09 UTC ---
> please let me know what issues remain on Solaris after r183920
Solaris 8/9 wo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51753
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-10 15:28:17 UTC ---
> With this fixed, all but the
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-load-int128.c -O0 -g thread simulation
> test
>
> failures (at all o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296
--- Comment #38 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-10 17:01:39 UTC ---
> --- Comment #37 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-07
> 09:22:29 UTC ---
> Rainer, you should now be able to define _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51874
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-14 18:31:28 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-12
> 06:04:42 UTC ---
> In current mainline I'm not aware of any test failures on Solaris. The S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52205
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-14 18:39:32 UTC ---
> --- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-12
> 19:52:02 UTC ---
> The patch fixes the test case and also passes some relevant Go tests.
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48501
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:25:56 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 18:06:55 UTC ---
> Should be fixed now. Let me know if you still see problems.
Not with these thr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48122
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:23:05 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 19:47:16 UTC ---
> I believe this is fixed now. The testsuite compilation now uses
> -fno-topl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50654
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:29:29 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 00:40:07 UTC ---
> Should be fixed on mainline. Although I only tested it on
> x86_64-unkno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52205
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:46:02 UTC ---
> Fine with me (I won't make any of these changes myself though).
I'll probably give it a whirl, but only after 4.7 has branched. For
4.8, t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48243
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:21:17 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-14
> 19:44:21 UTC ---
> I think these are all fixed now.
Right. The only failures left are crypto/ra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52189
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 20:04:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-10
> 11:25:35 UTC ---
> This change:
>
> --- baseline_symbols.txt2012-01-23 19:01:03.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:58:27 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-02-10
> 12:30:39 UTC ---
> The bug was that the gnu.ver wildcards were too generic and thus matched even
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52189
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 20:02:08 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-10
> 11:20:33 UTC ---
> 4) Don't export them (thus, eventually live with undefined symbols?)
Righ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 20:01:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor 2012-02-16
> 15:55:04 UTC ---
> First and foremost, sorry for the big delay but I could not have a
> look at thi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52188
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 19:54:52 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-10
> 11:23:49 UTC ---
> Then simply don't export it? It's a template instantiation after a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52189
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-16 20:05:27 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-02-10
> 11:29:09 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #0)
>> * Default to --disable-threads on Solaris 8/9 to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52287
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-17 11:56:05 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt 2012-02-16
> 20:43:03 UTC ---
> Not reproducible with a cross compiler.
I've just verified that reverting you
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50166
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-17 16:03:56 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor 2012-02-17
> 15:59:42 UTC ---
> Can this PR be closed? It seems to have been fixed.
Not yet: support curren
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52361
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-24 10:43:02 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-24
> 10:35:32 UTC ---
> Actually I have a simple patch that speeds things up a bit, but not
> signif
101 - 200 of 1428 matches
Mail list logo
