https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62304
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Dave Malcolm ---
> Created attachment 33416
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33416&action=edit
> Candidate patch. Boo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #12)
>> Created attachment 33426 [details]
>> vect dump
>>
>> Sure, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62283
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> > So ... can you test enabling vect64 for sparc?
>>
>> While it works for the test at hand, the two other tests using vect64
>> (bb-slp-11.c and bb-slp-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Honza,
you meant to prepare a patch in July already
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg00985.html
but nothing has happened since. Could you please get to this soon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> The new gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt-2.c test FAILs on 64-bit SPARC (only;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62631
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> I think that's easiest for Eric to say.
>
> Not really, I guess you want to debug the function and replay the computation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61283
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---
> Does this still reproduce?
It does on i386-pc-solaris2.11 as of 20140924 (r215597).
Rainer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Comment 7 confirms my guess that there is a rounding problem on
> i386-sun-solaris2.11 (the test is three-year old and s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62265
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Teresa Johnson ---
> I believe this was fixed by the following commit:
>
> r214848 | uros | 2014-09-03 00:58:17 -0700 (Wed, 03 Sep 2014) | 4 lines
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Richard PALO ---
[...]
> otherwise, I'll have to port a more recent gdb because 7.6.1 balks under gcc
> 4.9.1
> may be awhile before I have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63352
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> Well, I get this, for example:
>
> In file included from opncls.c:26:0:
> opncls.c: In function 'bfd_fopen':
> bfd.h:529:65: error: right-hand operand o
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> agreed on the ideal of using config - if someone has time to implement it.
I may give it a shot if I find some time. Darwin testresults are hard
to read right now with so m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> > agreed on the ideal of using config - if someone has time to implement it.
>>
>> I may give it a shot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Right: an initial version was posted to gcc-patches at the listed URL,
but is currently being reworked. I usually only attach patches if they
are not yet ready for posting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67710
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Unfortunately, it doesn't work on Mac OS X 10.11.2: every link test
FAILs with
FAIL: 17_intro/freestanding.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
ld: warning: object file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65931
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Any news on this? If we want to workaround it, it should be bisected and
> analyzed what is the difference in the debug info.
> O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #23 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> Yes. If you apply the ugly hack from comment 11, you will find that it fixes
>> both the boehm-gc test suite re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67710
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Iain Sandoe ---
[...]
> Works For Me(™) on 10.10 with XC7.2 and 10.8.5 with XC5.1.1
Same for me on 10.11.3 Beta with XC 7.2 and 10.7 with XC 4.3.2.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66848
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #25 from Jack Howarth ---
[...]
> Did you remember to install the patched build before attempting to run the
> libjava test suite? System Integrity Protection
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67973
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> Created attachment 37227 [details]
>> back-port of Rainer's fix.
>
> Results with the patch posted
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61820
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard PALO ---
> I have this as well on SunOS 5.11 illumos with 4.9* (on pkgsrc)
Right, the bug is still present on the 4.9 branch (only). It was fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67175
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> Created attachment 36164
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36164&action=edit
> tentative
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66006
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> I have no idea what's going on here: those symbols are in the gcc 5
> libstdc++.so
> already, no idea why they are considered incompatible.
I see now what's goi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> It seems the old buggy Solaris /bin/sh is the culprit. According to the
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>> I know, but only on Solaris 12. Also, there'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67412
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> It seems the old buggy Solaris /bin/sh is the culprit. According to the
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> Can you run the following test and paste the output here?
[...]
Sure:
16
789.135620117187500
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>> The result is identical for both the mainline libgfortran.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> --- Comment #3 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
>> ---
>> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>>> The result is identical for both th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #4)
>>> int main (void)
>>> {
>>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #5)
>> If I drop the __builtin_ and include and instead,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67419
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
>> ---
>> (In reply to r...@
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-07 16:20:17 UTC ---
> --- Comment #25 from Tobias Burnus 2011-03-07
> 16:08:23 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #24)
>> All fortran testing is broken on Tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #73 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-07 19:05:14 UTC ---
> --- Comment #72 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-03-07 16:38:06 UTC ---
> If I remember correctly, mostly Solaris issues prevented us from defining
> __cp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #76 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-08 10:27:08 UTC ---
I admittedly haven't read the (excessively long) PR. If the Solaris
headers can only work with the Studio compilers, I'm certainly open for
a fixinclude
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48018
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-09 15:55:06 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-03-09
> 06:24:43 UTC ---
> I'm not sure it matters to the syslog writer that Solaris syslog uses
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48020
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-09 16:09:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-03-09
> 07:09:58 UTC ---
> I think that the problem is that the functions are not being run in the ord
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48019
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-09 18:30:12 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-03-09
> 18:21:44 UTC ---
> Come to think of it, the code sets SA_RESTART when it calls sigaction. Is
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #78 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-11 15:44:59 UTC ---
> --- Comment #77 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-03-08 11:19:03 UTC ---
> Great Rainer.
>
> As soon as 4.6.0 branches I guess we should ask Marc to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-11 16:45:31 UTC ---
> That being said, I'd prefer to postpone this fix to stage 1 due to
>
> - I'm currently moving flats so my stuff is all over and I'm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48120
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-14 20:51:54 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-03-14
> 20:43:47 UTC ---
> I don't think this is a bug unless --with-host-libstdcxx= option is being
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #37 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-15 16:24:01 UTC ---
>> I'd really like to see this fixed before 4.6.0: it is a regression from
>> 4.5 and makes fortran completely unusable on Tru64 UNIX for a re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #42 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-16 11:58:25 UTC ---
> --- Comment #41 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-03-15
> 20:38:18 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #37)
>> #if defined(__alpha__) && def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48135
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-17 14:04:09 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-17
> 13:58:19 UTC ---
> actually I see you're right, libgomp/configure doesn't allow symvers t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48135
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-17 14:17:37 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-17
> 13:55:16 UTC ---
> what about --enable-symvers=no ?
> you shouldn't need to edit configu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48135
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-17 15:12:12 UTC ---
> --- Comment #12 from Denis Excoffier
> 2011-03-17 14:43:35 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #11)
>> I don't really understand Denis' re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48168
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-17 15:57:55 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2011-03-17
> 15:21:03 UTC ---
> Duplicate of PR middle-end/48152?
Might be, but the testcase from Comment #5 doe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48135
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-17 16:17:47 UTC ---
>> Btw., what's your reason to still be running Solaris 8? I'm the Solaris
>> GCC maintainer and seriously consider to deprecate it for GC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48135
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-17 16:58:31 UTC ---
>> That's part your fault and part ours: while install.texi states `MPC
>> Library version 0.8.1 (or later)', later versions are rarely tes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48168
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-18 15:15:21 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2011-03-17
> 15:21:03 UTC ---
> Duplicate of PR middle-end/48152?
While a C++-only bootstrap indeed completes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48019
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-18 17:21:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #10 from Ian Lance Taylor 2011-03-17
> 02:58:56 UTC ---
> Thanks. It looks like the Solaris connect call does not honor SA_RESTART f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-21 14:47:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #38 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-03-15
> 17:04:41 UTC ---
> Created attachment 23669
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-21 16:49:19 UTC ---
> --- Comment #46 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-21
> 16:34:39 UTC ---
> You clearly don't understand that linking librt in means linking bot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48216
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-21 17:45:25 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2011-03-21
> 17:41:52 UTC ---
> What BOOT_CFLAGS do you use here? It's easy to see that the warning is bogus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-23 10:58:36 UTC ---
> Before revision 171039 the test was unsupported:
>
> UNSUPPORTED: /opt/gcc/p_work/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/pr46940_0.c
>
> becau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #49 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-23 13:13:53 UTC ---
>> Could we please avoid this mess with SUPPORTS_WEAK and GTHREAD_USE_WEAK
>> and make configure define SUPPORTS_WEAKREF or something like this, sinc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-23 15:05:17 UTC ---
> The linker is
>
> @(#)PROGRAM:ld PROJECT:ld64-97.17
> llvm version 2.9svn, from Apple Clang 1.7 (build 77)
>
> on x86_64-apple
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-23 15:38:08 UTC ---
I see what's going on now: Darwin (in gcc/config/darwin.h) is one of
only two targets (besides i386/djgpp.h) that override
LINK_COMMAND_SPEC.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-23 17:10:38 UTC ---
> maybe this is getting complex enough to warrant a spec of its own? (and then
> we
> could avoid cloning it)
Why would you want to c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-23 17:15:46 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2011-03-23 17:08:59 UTC ---
> With the change in comment #5, bootstrapping fails with
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-23 17:49:55 UTC ---
> au contraire, I think Rainer is right... ;) ... Iain did not engage brain
> sufficiently...
Me neither ;-)
> but one needs the " "
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-23 18:41:57 UTC ---
> it seems to the the Right Thing on *-darwin9 (cross-to-cris-elf will take
> longer).
>
> Executing on host: /Volumes/ScratchCS/gcc-4-7-tru
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-23 18:52:16 UTC ---
> --- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe 2011-03-23
> 18:46:06 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #16)
>> > it seems to the the Right Thing on *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48283
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-25 12:35:03 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-25
> 12:26:55 UTC ---
> Just to clarify - runtime or compile-time issue? I see the testcases
> oper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48287
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-25 15:59:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Ira Rosen 2011-03-25 15:42:06
> UTC ---
> It fails because of misaligned load, so
>
> Index:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-28 08:49:47 UTC ---
Could you please check if this test worked before my patch? It may have
been that the failure simply went unnoticed.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-28 11:11:09 UTC ---
> --- Comment #20 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2011-03-24 18:46:41 UTC ---
>> AFAICT, comment #12 is OK on *-darwin9 including cross-cris-elf.
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48245
--- Comment #25 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-28 11:21:20 UTC ---
>> supposed to test? pr46940_0.c fails because "only weak aliases are supported"
>> on darwin and the other tests pass even without plugin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-28 12:40:06 UTC ---
> I don't think thread_leak_test.c was tested before.
In that case, please try to compile it with the same flags used for one
of the other tests (e.g, lea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-29 11:30:31 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2011-03-29 11:21:53 UTC ---
> At revision 171632 the test also failed on x86_64-apple-darwin10.7.0:
[.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-29 11:46:29 UTC ---
> The failing test occured on a "quiet" state: i.e., terminal, safari, and xchat
> opened but not used.
> The tests run in a fraction of a sec
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48337
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-29 15:43:39 UTC ---
> Try adding Init(PROCESSOR_V7) to the lines in sparc.opt defining sparc_cpu
> and sparc_cpu_and_features. It appears an explicit initializer of 0 for
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48340
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-29 18:09:05 UTC ---
Both return 0. I wonder if the fact that char is unsigned on IRIX might
have something to do with this? OTOH, compiling them with -fsigned-char
doesn't c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48340
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-30 11:16:55 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-30
> 11:07:13 UTC ---
> Are you using a specific configure value for --enable-clocale or just usi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48340
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-30 15:06:04 UTC ---
> I'm planning to add isblank to std::locale (LWG 2019) which will need changes
> to all the locale models so while I'm doing that I will o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48340
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-30 15:06:50 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-30
> 11:29:27 UTC ---
> it will be *at least* two weeks before I have time to start that work
Don'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48341
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-30 15:16:57 UTC ---
> Why do you think this is bogus? It's correct for IBM long double, where
> the mantissa bits can be discontiguous, and so the least value greater
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48019
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-31 16:00:53 UTC ---
> OK, so now we know that connect ignores SA_RESTART, but I forgot to ask about
> accept. Can you try this program as well?
>
> On GNU/Linux it pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48242
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-04 17:23:00 UTC ---
When I attach gdb to the hanging process (on Solaris 8/x86), I find:
[Switching to Thread 4 (LWP 1)]
0xbf6cac1b in _sigsuspend () from /usr/lib/libc.so.1
(gdb
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48340
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-06 08:55:22 UTC ---
> --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-04-03
> 17:58:14 UTC ---
> Created attachment 23858
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48480
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-06 13:20:24 UTC ---
> On x86_64-apple-darwin10 the test staticrootslib.lo in the boehm-gc suite
> fails
> due to the following warnings
>
> Excess errors:
> /us
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48122
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-11 13:15:45 UTC ---
I noticed that this error only happens in a modifed tree with the libgo
multilib check patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00247.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47571
--- Comment #55 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-18 14:07:10 UTC ---
> --- Comment #53 from Tobias Burnus 2011-04-18
> 11:47:45 UTC ---
> Rainer, all: Is the problem now fixed on 4.7? If so, should it be backported
Y
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48498
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-18 14:37:18 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen 2011-04-17 12:15:29
> UTC ---
> Could you please attach vect dumps before the XPASSes? From the current dumps
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48438
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-26 17:36:51 UTC ---
> - large_real_kind_2.F90
> Fails for CTEST_POWER(0.0, 5.4), which is:
> abs(0.0**5.4 - 0.0**5.4)/(0.0**5.4) > eps
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48819
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-29 10:40:14 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-29
> 10:30:33 UTC ---
> Can you check if
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48498
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-29 10:42:00 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Ira Rosen 2011-04-28 07:42:31
> UTC ---
> I submitted a patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg01627.html)
> s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48819
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-29 12:32:34 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther 2011-04-29
> 10:44:54 UTC ---
> Issues may arise if build_int_cst is called with NULL_TREE and the value
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48819
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-29 12:50:00 UTC ---
> ick. So, I suppose
>
> CONSTRUCTOR_PREPEND_VALUE (d, build_int_cst (ptr_type_node,
> temp));
>
> would fix it as well. Patch is o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48819
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-04-29 19:42:13 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2011-04-29 14:17:30 UTC ---
> PR48769 looks like a duplicate of this PR. As I said in this pr I am t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48842
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-02 12:13:24 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-02 11:54:47
> UTC ---
> I've fixed identical falure happening on HP and AIX. Does it still reproduce
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48674
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-02 13:47:47 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-05-02
> 13:23:41 UTC ---
> Yes, the noise is annoying but I can't do anything but paper over the iss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48842
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-04 11:13:24 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka 2011-05-02 11:54:47
> UTC ---
> I've fixed identical falure happening on HP and AIX. Does it still repro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48251
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-19 11:07:14 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-19
> 10:38:20 UTC ---
> Can this be closed now?
No, skipping the tests is just a workaround. I mean to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48251
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-19 12:16:25 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-05-19
> 11:28:25 UTC ---
> If you can't attach to a running process, that sounds like either a gdb bug,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-09-27 17:46:29 UTC ---
Jan, this bug is now open for two weeks with no indication of any
progress. It breaks Ada bootstrap on a primary platform, so please fix
or revert your patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-09-27 17:48:14 UTC ---
Jan,
again, no progress at all for 2 1/2 weeks on a bootstrap failure on a
primary platform. Please fix or revert.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45693
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-09-27 18:21:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2010-09-27
> 18:14:21 UTC ---
>>After it, libstdc++-v3/configure incorrectly concludes that alpha-dec-osf5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45693
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-09-27 18:40:36 UTC ---
> As I recall, the patch was to circumvent a race condition - which manifest
> most
> frequently in the decision as to whether libgomp used TLS or not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45658
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-09-28 12:13:01 UTC ---
Fine, thanks. Let me know if you need Solaris/SPARC testing before
commit.
801 - 900 of 1428 matches
Mail list logo
