https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #41 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #36 from Daniel Santos ---
> Thank you for all of your work on this. The .cfi directives shouldn't be
> *too*
> critical -- I've barely sc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #42 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #37 from Daniel Santos ---
> (In reply to Daniel Santos from comment #36)
>> tutor! :) This is assembly with cpp, so the gas .macro could be replaced
&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #43 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #38 from Daniel Santos ---
[...]
> I've only run check on RUNTESTFLAGS="ms-sysv.exp" so far and I have a full
> regression test running right no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> I tried hard to reproduce but failed so yes, on my radar but nothing I can
> do about :/
>
> If you can direct me
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
> I have not yet built a native i686 compiler with 64bit support but only
> tried a x86_64 -> i686 cross with 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #49 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #47 from Daniel Santos ---
[...]
> I'm sorry for the delay again. I've been having some health problems
> infringing upon my hacking time.
No worries
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80928
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
> I have not yet built a native i686 compiler with 64bit support but only
> tried a x86_64 -> i686 cross with 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #52 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> The attached patch (on top of v6) *might* solve the problem on Darwin, but I
> don't understand exactly how GOTPCREL works, other than it's using a global
> offse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #55 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #54 from Daniel Santos ---
> Created attachment 41627
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41627&action=edit
> darwin fixup (on t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80759
--- Comment #57 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #56 from Daniel Santos ---
[...]
> Wonderful! I presume that we still need libgcc buy-off? I'll put together a
> ChangeLog and post it to gcc-patches to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66967
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Comparing the assembler output with and without -fno-use-cxa-atexit, I
find that the former is missing not just the call to the destructor, but
the destructor code itself.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81351
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> I'll start a reghunt to identify the culprit, but the most likely candidates
> are
[...]
> changeset: 39311:a2df04e7a94b
> user:hubicka@138bc75d-0d04-0410-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81351
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> Got it: just reverting svn r250035 was enough to make one of the
> testcases PASS again.
comparing pr49115.exe.ltrans0.s without and with the patch shows what's
wrong:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78509
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from James Greenhalgh ---
> Thanks, and sorry for the break.
No worries: as long as the thing still bootstraps ;-)
> Can you help me out with a configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #57 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #56 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So, is this resolved now?
The bootstrap failures are AFAIK, but perhaps we should keep it open for
the fixinclude fix backports disc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Dominik Vogt ---
> Some things to try with reduction-10.c:
>
> 1) Remove all OMP pragmas from the code. If it still fails it's not a
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78467
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Assuming this is fixed. Please reopen if not.
It is: I'd included it in last night's bootstrap. After Andreas' hin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78509
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from James Greenhalgh ---
> Should now be fixed, but I'll leave open for Rainer to confirm.
I'd included your patch in last night's i386-pc-s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78264
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Still present on Solaris.
Jason,
could you please have a look at this PR? Your patch (r241944)
2016-11-07 Jason Merrill
Imp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78642
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> Is your compiler configured with --enable-checking=rtl ?
>
> Yes, but I don't think Rainer's is.
not explicitly: I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78509
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I don't have a box with 3dnow, but the assembly for -m32 -O2 -m3dnow -mno-sse
> pr42549.c looks identical on x86_64-linux bet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78264
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Hi Eric,
thanks for fixing this. Shouldn't we keep the PR open, though? It's
still an ice-on-invalid.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52192
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Should we change the target to *-*-netbsd* now that solaris 8 and 9 are not
> supported?
Certainly: I've no intention on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78978
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> If the libstdc++ approach works and is acceptable, it seems to me we should do
> the same for libgo.
Fine with me: it has the adv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78979
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> The Solaris header would be more correct if it did:
>
> #if __STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L && __cplusplus < 201402L
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've started looking at this again.
Norm's patch has a few problems:
* For one, it matches a couple of alias names for -std values, which
will never hit the specs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40411
--- Comment #33 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Jeff,
> Still here and following from afar; I'm not using solaris much these days, but
> it always brightens my day when I get an email re this bug and some level of
> pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79051
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
> Thanks. The patch looks good to me. You should be able to commit the patch
> without approval.
Indeed, done.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41590
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor ---
> Documentation patch:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00560.html
I think you got the wrong PR here: your doc patch is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79821
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Weird, that commit only changes the names of some variables.
indeed, and I compared the .ii files to check if by some weird
coinciden
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79821
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
> possibly GC parameter sensitive
Indeed: the default is
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096
Incr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79821
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> If you up from the ICE case up to gt_pch_nx_die_struct frame, it would be
> interesting if you can figure out what x is would be pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79821
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
[...]
> Ah, so it will be most likely that
> DW_AT_const_value: float
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79821
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 40891
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40891&action=edit
> gcc7-pr79821.patch
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79821
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
[...]
>> I can also run a full bootstrap if that's helpful.
>
> If you can, it is useful. I'll do a x86_64/i686-linu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79347
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Fixed. The failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.12 should be resolved by patch to
> PR77536.
It is indeed.
Thanks.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #15)
>
> Can you change line:
>
> if (imsg.ne."End of record") call abort
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #17)
>>
>> ro@colima 27 >
>> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=../../../sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #20 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #19)
>
>> [...]
>>
>> Here's the o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78881
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #24 from Jerry DeLisle ---
[...]
> Can you try this patch. From what I read there can be issues with char pointer
> sizes between these architectures.
>
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82707
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
[...]
> I can't reproduce though at r253997. Can somebody post a configure line and
> command line?
I'm seeing it on i386
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82824
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager ---
[...]
> Apparently 10.6/Darwin 11 isn't supported either; see bug 82829. As I said
I couldn't find an explicit statement of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82824
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager ---
[...]
> Really? It doesn't show up in the ./configure --help output:
>
> Local-Admins-MacBook-Pro:gcc ericgallager$ ./configure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82824
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've now submitted the patch upstream: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39888.
Let's see how this goes.
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82824
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> I've now submitted the patch upstream: https://reviews.llvm.org/D39888.
>
> This patch allowed to boots
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83030
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> Thanks for the report. Unfortunately one needs native compiler for that. Do we
> have a working machine in GCC Compile Farm?
Not yet:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83030
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
[...]
>> Can you please bisect to a single
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83098
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Yes, please retry with r255048 or later.
Currently running: after omitting Go for PR go/83102, I'm into make
check n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77483
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
> You could add dg-skip-if or XFAILs to the tests now failing. IMHO a testsuite
> issue.
I though about just adding -mno-stackreali
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Author: jvdelisle
> Date: Tue Sep 6 23:22:26 2016
> New Revision: 240018
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=240018
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70582
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Does this still reproduce? I have implemented the optimization that removes
> weakrefs with definition provided in other unit so th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Presumably caused by r240187 or r240192
I think I had r240187 (or a slightly earlier variant thereof) in my
r240175 tree when bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> As a test, try this patch.
>
> diff --git a/libgfortran/io/io.h b/libgfortran/io/io.h
> index edc520a9..00ced533 100644
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> Seems so, especially since sparc is more sensitive here. I've just
> rebuilt lib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Would you please apply the patch from here and see if it fixes also or breaks
> more.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71491
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
> I suppose XFAILing / providing alternat scan-dump for [!] vect_hw_misalign
> will fix this.
>
> Can you test the attach
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78055
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> Rainer, please confirm the fix commited on trunk when you have time.
Sure: I had it in my tree during this weekend's bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78111
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
[...]
> You will need at least the attached patch that includes for
> PATH_MAX.
>
> PATH_MAX is used as a bypass in configure che
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Try http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-10/msg02062.html ?
Didn't help, unfortunately: I rebuilt cc1plus with the patch and
c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Can you attach then preprocessed copy.ii, cc1plus command line and copy.s
> (with
> additional -dA) from both r241136 and r241
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70975
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> Does following patch work:
>
> --cut here--
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc
> b/libstdc++-v3/src/filesys
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78191
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Created attachment 39954
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39954&action=edit
> gcc7-pr78191.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78112
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat ---
[...]
> My analysis so far is that gen_subprogram_die is supposed to be called a very
> specific number of times for each fun
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37150
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #26 from Richard Biener ---
> I believe that https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-11/msg00686.html will
> fix this (currently in testing).
While it fixes the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
[...]
> The fixincludes fix looks cleaner, but it's harder to me to cook a patch
> because:
>
> 1) I have no experience w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
[...]
> Bootstrap is still broken with the patch:
[...]
Did you regen fixincl.x (with ./genfixes in the source tree)?
A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78264
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> As Solaris boxes with their header files are not readily available (at least
> to
I'm trying to change that (i.e. getting So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> But for tests:
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/vect/fast-math-mgrid-resid.f -O scan-tree-dump-times
> pcom
> "Executing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #29 from Iain Sandoe ---
[...]
> FWIW, the SDKs don't generally change once N+1 is out, so I think that the
> fixes to 10.10 and 10.11 will not be fragile,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #38 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
>
> --- Comment #35 from Jack Howarth ---
> Created attachment 40043
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #39 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #36 from Jack Howarth ---
> Created attachment 40044
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40044&action=edit
> fixincludes trace.h g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #37 from Jack Howarth ---
> Created attachment 40045
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40045&action=edit
> preprocessed source f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #44 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
[...]
>> Otherwise the definition of SANITIZER_OS_TRACE results in
>> libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_mac.cc making ca
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #48 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #47 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
[...]
> Rainer, sorry for a dumb question: are you going to commit your fix for
> darwin_availabilityinternal part? Or should I jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78267
--- Comment #50 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #49 from Iain Sandoe ---
[...]
> I can do darwin14 (I built 242408 last night with the patches-in-progress +
> __BLOCKS__) but that's a little bit more th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> > write(*,"(en15.1)") 9.4905_16
>> > end
>>
>> 9.4E+00
>
> So the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #24 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Rainer,
>
> can you test the following patch?
>
> --- _clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f902014-03-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle ---
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #21)
>> > We can xfail the test case if we are certain of the problem.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> > What we should do is break the test case into two test cases one for
>> > quad16 and
>> > the oth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is the following patch better?
It was a bit confusing at first glimpse, but fine.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #33 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #32 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> It was a bit confusing at first glimpse, but fine.
>
> ???
I ran the test on Solaris 9 and 11 and looked at the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> I ran the test on Solaris 9 and 11 and looked at the resulting .sum
>> files. Seeing the Unsupported rounding e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60602
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
> Hi Rainer,
>
> Given that the 2.9 target is deprecated, do we really care about this
> problem
> ?
Not too much. Given
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #54 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #53 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Dave, Rainer,
>
> Could you test the following code?
Sure: passes on both i386-pc-solaris2.{9,10} with XFAILs on Sol
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60670
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> Or the header needs to include all variants with proper #ifdef-ery
This is difficult for a header generated per multilib at buil
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60128
--- Comment #63 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
On i386-pc-solaris2.9, I get the same PASSes and XFAILs as before:
Unsupported rounding for real(16)
380 0 52
PASS: gfortran.dg/fmt_en.f90 -Os execution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60670
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>> > --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
>> > Or the hea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60817
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I'll have a look. The patch is completely bogus, though: it seems to
have been hand-edited to the point where it doesn't even apply.
That said, we need to make sure th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60817
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Ruud Koolen ---
> I generated the patch cleanly against trunk. What's wrong with it?
Seems to be a quirk of bugzilla: if you download the patc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61084
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Bootstrap is into stage2 now. Will take a couple of hours before it's done.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61084
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
The bootstrap is finished now: my last one is a week and a half ago, but
at least some of the regressions are wide-int related:
+FAIL: gcc.target/sparc/pdist-2.c (internal compiler error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61084
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> ---
[...]
> Here's a patch for the pdist regression. I'll need more info about
I've manual
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61084
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
>> the gnat.dg/outer_agg_bitfield_constructor.adb problem.
>
> In a build tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61084
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>>> the gnat.dg/outer_agg_bitfield_constructor.adb problem.
>>
>> In a build tree from 10 days ago, compiling
>> nested_agg_bitfield_constructor.adb took ca.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60981
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Could you please provide details on your configuration? AFAICS, the
lto-plugin isn't ever built in a native Darwin configuration.
So please provide info on host OS and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60981
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Tony Theodore ---
> I'm building a cross compiler with:
>
> Host: x86_64-apple-darwin13.1.0
> Targets: i686-pc-mingw32 x86_64-w64-mingw32 i686
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61084
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Thanks for the fix. The second part, fixing the pdist failures, is
still missing, though.
I haven't yet had an opportunity to look into the two gnat.dg testcases
that still tim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> gcc/java/jcf.h:#define GET_u2(PTR) (((PTR)[0] << 8) | ((PTR)[1]))
>
> smells like
>
> 2014-05-23 Thomas Preud
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Thomas,
btw, I noticed that you use duplicate dg-options in
gcc.dg/optimize-bswapsi-[12].c. Please use dg-additional-options for
the s390-*-* case to avoid the duplication.
Thanks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61320
--- Comment #7 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 ---
>> gcc/java/jcf.h:#define GET_u2(PTR) (((PTR
601 - 700 of 1428 matches
Mail list logo
