https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88723
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I don't have access to Solaris, can you attach preprocessed
> testsuite_shared.cc
> + the g++ options used to compile it?
Ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88721
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> This patch allowed the bootstrap to finish.
>
> There are 3 callers of function_arg_slotno so we would potentially
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88721
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> I've just successfully finished a sparc-sun-solaris2.11 with it: worked fine.
>
> Thanks, same for me but for some reas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #28 from Gary Mills ---
> I installed the patch mentioned above to bypass that error. Now, with this
> minimal configuration:
>
> $
> /export/home/mi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #31 from Gary Mills ---
> When I built gcc-7 with even more configuration options, including
> --enable-initfini-array, I got this segmentation fault on SPARC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87864
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Johannes Pfau ---
>> The Minfo_Bracketing assert in sections_elf_shared.d fails now, of
>> course, but the file is usable even without
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Johannes Pfau ---
> Regarding the _d_dso_registry issue: Yes, as far as I can see it is a bug that
> handleForName dlcloses the handle here. I think what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #70 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #63 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Are the remaining issues only related to .debug_macro, or other stuff too?
> If only .debug_macro, does:
> --- gcc/dwarf2out.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #71 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #64 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> Are the remaining issues only related to .debug_macro, or other stuff too?
>
> The LTO testsuite is clean on SPARC/Solaris 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #72 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #66 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #63)
>> --- gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-11 17:48:53.498068316 +0100
>> +++ gcc/dwarf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #73 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #69 from Richard Biener ---
> So if sparc*-solaris is clean the priority can be lowered since x86-solaris is
> neither primary nor secondary. Making it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #75 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #74 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
>> --- Comment #73 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE > dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
>> It *does* FAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85190
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
> HJs testers do not show the failure on i?86 anymore. The other regressions
> must be older, likely since testcase introduction in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #77 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
> Waiting for Solaris engineer input... (or a machine to be able to debug this
> directly - is there one on the CF?).
We're f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #82 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #80 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #78)
>> Created attachment 43917 [details]
>> Proposed patch for gcc.dg/debug/p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #81 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #79 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
[...]
>> Since trying to fix the initial issue is out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85429
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Does the SPARC Solaris assembler support a syntax like
>
> .section ".go.buildid",#exclude
>
> ? That
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85429
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Should be fixed on tip, requested permission to backport to GCC 8 branch.
It's fixed on sparc, but the Solaris/x86 with as fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85429
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Do you think you could work out a patch that handles the various different
> cases?
Sure, if I can figure out how to determine w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
[...]
> According to log file alias support is mission on solaris. Thus following
> patch
> should fix that by skipping the test:
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85656
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
[...]
> So can you please debug why we go into following branch:
> 1277if (!create_wrapper
> 1278
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
> Why does this affect only new files, i.e. how did existing libgcc .S files
> avoid running into the same issue?
Besides the {avx,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> I see several possible fixes:
>>
>> * Just compile those files with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
>> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86057
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
> Sorry for the breakage, patch candidate sent here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg00285.html
Now successfully boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91228
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> @Rainer: About what linker are we talking?
The Solaris system ld, as mentioned in the description. Described in
great detail at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91169
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Duplicate of PR tree-optimization 91180?
I don't think so: the failure(s) persist on both sparc-sun-solaris2.11
and i386-pc-solari
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91228
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
[...]
> Meh, I made the +1 at a wrong place. The correction patch should look like:
>
> diff --git a/libiberty/simple-object-elf.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91283
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 46635
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46635&action=edit
> gcc10-pr91283.patch
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91376
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
>> Possibly related to the .gnu_lto emission changes?
>
> Well, my changes a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91376
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
[...]
> Sorry for not getting that. Well, then please try revision before
> cc5277b173701364c10204f316db28198f2c683b
That one is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91376
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
>> Good, then let me take a look.
>
> So I've just tested current master of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91376
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #8)
[...]
>> I don't see how nm would come into play here.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91376
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
>> > --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
>> > (In r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91498
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10)
>> > +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/minmax-7.c scan-assembler pminsd
>>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91530
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 46746
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46746&action=edit
> gcc10-pr91530.patch
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91530
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 46764
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46764&action=edit
> gcc10-pr91530-sse2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91549
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So fixed?
It is from all I can see in both my tests and gcc-testresults. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91712
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Should be fixed by SVN revision 275648 (I forgot to add the PR reference to
> the
> commit message).
It is indeed, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92025
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
> Yes. r276603 has made it possible: PR middle-end/91977 - missing
> -Wstringop-overflow on memcpy into a pointer plus offset
Goo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57025
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Alan Coopersmith ---
> This seems to go back to:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=a6905708d86d6c2d8560168ac5accb816a2038c8
> and was
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57025
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Alan Coopersmith ---
> And I got here this week due to the discussion on
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/merge_requests/2258/diffs?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Reduced testcase for AIX, -O2 -gdwarf-4 (both C and C++):
Also fails on Solaris/SPARC, though still with -gdwarf-2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Alexandre Oliva ---
> the problem is that a concatn resulting from decomposing a reg is not unshared
> in a debug insn because it's between bloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #17 from Alexandre Oliva ---
> Rainier, I wasn't sure how "same" the bootstrap failure you'd observed was,
> that's why I'd asked f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82965
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon ---
[...]
> It's still present with r255848.
Same on sparc-sun-solaris2* as of r255834.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I'm having a look at what's still going wrong with Eric's updated
patch. On Solaris/SPARC, there are only two failures left:
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr51567-1 cp_lt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Here are the additional types of failures found on Solaris/x86:
* Invalid sh_info:
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr42987 cp_lto_pr42987_0.o-cp_lto_pr42987_1.o link, -flto
-flto-partition=none -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
>>* Invalid sh_info:
>>
>>FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr42987 cp_lto_pr42987_0.o-cp_lto_pr42987_1.o link,
>>-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #36 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> For simplicity you might want to elide the partial link step by patching it
> out
> of lto-wrapper. Does Solaris / SPARC use the linker plugin? You at least seem
I'll
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #38 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> [...]
>>>* Invalid sh_info:
>>>
>>>FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr42987 cp_lto_pr42987_0.o-cp_lto_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #39 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
>> * On x86, of the previous 32 ld: fatal: has invalid sh_info errors, 16
>> are now gone.
>>
>> Ho
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #42 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #41 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
>> Unfortunately not: it's really the section index pointing to the
>> non-existing (i.e. elimin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81926
--- Comment #38 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
> Note that dwarf2out.c causes the section to be emitted via
>
> static void
> dwarf2out_assembly_start (void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83675
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
> ---
[...]
> Sorry, I'd missed that this feature was restricted to TARGET_VIS2.
> The attached patch seems to fix it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83694
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 43042
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43042&action=edit
> gcc8-pr83694.patch
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
>> that should have been used as the reloc section for the new section 2.
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #48 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #50 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #49 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>> Indeed. I've just attached an updated patch th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #55 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #54 from Richard Biener ---
> Created attachment 43075
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43075&action=edit
> Updated patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #57 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #56 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
[...]
> I can reproduce that with -ffat-lto-objects where
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #59 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #58 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
[...]
>> [I'm continuing this with examples from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82825
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
A patch has been approved upstream: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41346.
Will post to gcc-patches once it has been installed.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82824
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
See the PR URL fieldd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82824
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
That's the value of VM_MEMORY_OS_ALLOC_ONCE on Mac OS X 10.9 and up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83838
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
> There are
>
> /* Only recent versions of Solaris 11 ld properly support hidden .gnu.linkonce
>sections, so don't use them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83837
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 43138
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43138&action=edit
> gcc8-pr83837.pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83838
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
[...]
>> > Does Solaris ld support comdat?
>>
>> ... like this one: complete Solaris ld support for comdat started
>&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I can't think of how the self-test failure could be related, unless it just
> results in miscompiled stage2 or stage3 compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84017
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> I was reminded of ld's -z relaxreloc option (more on that separately).
> While i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
The problem still exists, and according to gcc-testresults the test
FAILs on i386-pc-solaris2.11, x86_64-pc-solaris2.11,
x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0, i686-pc-linux-gnu, and x86_64-pc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've just checked a x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.2 build: the test PASSes for
-m64, but FAILs for -m32 with
/var/folders/zz/zyxvpxvq6csfxvn_n87r00021y/T//cchNxmiW.s:7:no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> /var/folders/zz/zyxvpxvq6csfxvn_n87r00021y/T//cchNxmiW.s:7:no such
>> instruction: `shrx %eax, 4(%esp),%eax'
> http://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/SARX:SHLX:S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80569
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> This shouldn't happen with degagnu after
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=dejagnu.git;a=commit;h=5256bd82343000c76bc0e48139003f90b6184347
Which would mean requ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84243
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from igor.v.tsimbalist at intel dot com ---
[...]
>> Btw., I'm seeing the cet-intrin-[34].c ICEs too on i386-pc-solaris2.11. The
>> two
>&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84278
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
>> +FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr84278.c scan-assembler-not (%.sp)
>
> I'm blind - I cannot spot (%.sp) in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85947
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Whoever added the testcase should put a comment to explain the xfail.
This would be Richard, alread on the Cc:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
>> numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #33 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> I found that enabling it causes quite a number of regressions. Here's
>> the list that I've just recreated:
[...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89415
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg01650.html
I've now included the patch in a sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89447
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
FWIW, after this patch and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg01815.html
only the runtime failures mentioned there and go/build (which times out
after 4 minutes, just as it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89447
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
[...]
> Do you have https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg01332.html too?
I have a similar patch from Ian, otherwise results a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88406
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> I don't seem to have access to a SPARC Solaris 10 box.
You do ;-) Just log into s10-sparc.gcc at my site. Last Friday'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87553
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> Any progress on this please?
I haven't seen this after 20181116 and the last gcc-testresults posting
showing the failure on AIX
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89447
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> I've committed a version of your patch, which I hope will fix all the
> problems.
> Please let me know if not.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Iain Buclaw ---
[...]
> I posted this to gcc-patches in three parts, it would be good if you can test
> it on solaris before I commit.
Sure: I meant to d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
>>
>> * On Linux/x86_64, I see a few failures on i686:
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #15 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Commits r270043 and r270057 deals with the immediate problems here, other
> problems raised in pr89255 I think should be handled on a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> Once I'd recompiled libphobos at -g3 -O0, the problem vanished, though.
> I&#
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Created attachment 46069
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46069&action=edit
> Use dg-runtest instead
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Ignoring the test results, multilib handling seems to be working well for you
> then?
It does indeed, thanks. Not having tested Sola
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89255
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw ---
>> Ignoring the test results, multilib ha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw ---
> I've got a (horrible?) hack for getting tls_modid from Solaris.
Cool, and not really horrible ;-) It's already this way
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88150
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've now reworked my non-dlpi_tls_modid patch to include this after
Solaris 11.[345]/x86 testing gave excellent and pretty much identical
test results:
https://gcc.gnu.o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90079
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
> This patch not only compiles, but gives way better results. I need to analyze
> them in detail, but it seems that most of the remaining
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Definitions added in r270372. I made a couple of tweaks to the original patch
> so that only mcontext_t and ucontext_t are public in t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
>> Definitions added in r270372. I made a coupl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90139
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> That is a 7/8 regression though then. Or do you have a testcase that still
> fails on the trunk?
No: it seems the original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88238
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
[...]
>> *
>>
>> symbol not found: dl_iterate_phdr
301 - 400 of 1428 matches
Mail list logo
