http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45851
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-01 12:31:14 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Dave Korn 2010-10-01 01:30:26
> UTC ---
> Hi Rainer; Cc'ing you as requested back before you went on vacation.
Thanks. I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45990
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-13 17:20:59 UTC ---
Sure: with this patch, the test aborts:
Assertion failed: t.isctype('e', t.lookup_classname(name,
name+sizeof(name)-1)), file
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/loc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-21 20:57:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2010-10-21 20:41:06
> UTC ---
> Can you try
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg01858.html
Doesn'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-22 10:15:20 UTC ---
> --- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-21
> 23:33:47 UTC ---
> I'm assuming you run the testcase on Solaris? Can you provide good/bad
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-22 13:35:08 UTC ---
> --- Comment #10 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-10-22
> 13:24:53 UTC ---
> I'll also need preprocessed source since I'm lacking Solaris includes.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46131
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-10-22 14:59:32 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson 2010-10-22
> 14:51:59 UTC ---
> I don't see anything wrong in the assembler code for
> the test case
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-04 18:48:46 UTC ---
> --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu 2010-11-03 17:10:07
> UTC ---
> Please try revision 166259.
As expected, the reversion fixes the testcase. A full
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-09 10:13:59 UTC ---
I've just had another report in private mail about Solaris 10 bootstrap
failing because errors out if not used in a C99 compilation.
It seems this is h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-09 22:06:57 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 21:21:07
> UTC ---
> I would expect so, but haven't audited the code. Of course, we *have* a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-09 22:13:39 UTC ---
> How about this? Compiles OK on i686-pc-cygwin with -std=c89 added to the
> cflags.
Haven't tried yet, but wouldn't it be cleaner to use code as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46397
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-09 22:17:31 UTC ---
> I hope the respin will render this moot.
Right, our mails crossed :-)
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-10 12:35:18 UTC ---
I'll give it a try once my current IRIX 6.5 bootstrap finishes (which
may take another couple of hours at least).
But even so, the question remains what&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-10 17:27:09 UTC ---
> Well, as soon as you upgrade your binutils or install gold, it will start
> working.
gold doesn't work on any of my platforms, and GNU ld only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-11 13:56:56 UTC ---
> --- Comment #19 from Dave Korn 2010-11-11 13:38:04
> UTC ---
> Hi Rainer, I'm closing this bug despite not having heard back from you about
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45722
--- Comment #22 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-11 21:45:40 UTC ---
It dies with SIGBUS here:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 1 (LWP 1)]
0x00012d24 in testE ()
at
/vol/gcc/src/hg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45722
--- Comment #37 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-22 17:05:48 UTC ---
The failures are gone on mips-sgi-irix6.5 (both 32 and 64-bit
multilibs), too.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46114
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-25 16:25:35 UTC ---
> --- Comment #15 from Bernd Schmidt 2010-11-25
> 16:05:36 UTC ---
> Can you go back to the failing sources and test whether
> http://gcc.gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46671
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-12-03 15:21:51 UTC ---
Jan, your patch has broken bootstrap on two platforms for a week now,
and there's not even an indication that you're looking at the problem.
Please fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46869
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-12-15 17:08:00 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini
> 2010-12-15 12:20:12 UTC ---
> Rainer, if in order to reduce the noise you want to simply xfail for now the
> f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49141
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-24 14:39:57 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-05-24 14:17:19 UTC ---
> It seems to me that the problem is isnan, not complex.h. We should check what
> w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49141
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-26 09:26:13 UTC ---
> --- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-05-24 15:00:21 UTC ---
> Rainer, please confirm that everything is ok now, 2/3 of the patch goes to
> 4_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49141
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-26 09:57:17 UTC ---
> --- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-05-26 09:37:55 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #9)
>> that passed before. I don't believe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49141
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-26 11:25:27 UTC ---
> --- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-05-26 10:01:48 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #11)
>> They passed on 20110520.
>
> Then I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49141
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-26 11:35:05 UTC ---
> --- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-05-26 11:32:20 UTC ---
> Thanks Rainer. Let me know if I can be otherwise useful.
I will, thanks. I&#
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49170
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-27 10:05:28 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt
> 2011-05-26 13:24:31 UTC ---
> Rainer, please try:
[...]
> and let me know if it solves the problem.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49191
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-05-27 13:59:11 UTC ---
> Is sparc a strict-alignment target? Then that's expected.
It is.
> Hmm. Not sure we have a dg-effective-target strict-align ...
> so you probab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49250
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-01 17:11:49 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-01
> 17:03:50 UTC ---
> Created attachment 24410
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49288
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-06 12:42:14 UTC ---
With Sun as, the testcase fails, with GNU as, it passes. On IRIX 6.5,
it fails even with GNU as, haven't yet checked why.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49288
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-06 13:22:45 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-06-06
> 13:00:20 UTC ---
> Created attachment 24448
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36610
--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-14 13:53:56 UTC ---
objc.dg/torture/forward-1.m now seems to XPASS (almost?) everywhere with
-fgnu-runtime:
alpha-dec-osf5.1b
i386-pc-solaris2.1[01] -m64
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49375
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-14 15:41:50 UTC ---
IMO this is a clear example why LD_LIBRARY_PATH is evil: the execution
tests in the testsuite should be linked with -R/-rpath/whatever is
required so the correct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-14 15:47:16 UTC ---
> --- Comment #14 from Richard Guenther 2011-06-12
> 12:48:32 UTC ---
> A target issue as it only depends on the assembler used. Rainer, as people
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49314
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-16 18:18:59 UTC ---
> It is set when the array is created.
> I would suggest stepping through String::getBytes.
When I do this, I find that the count argument to _Jv_NewPrimAr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49314
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-16 20:51:00 UTC ---
> It has been a while, but I think either _Jv_NewStringUTF
> or _Jv_NewStringUtf8Const. IIRC one of these is run
> during class initialization to tu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49314
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-17 09:56:50 UTC ---
As a quick hack, I've just removed the definition of HAVE_ICONV and
rebuilt libgcj.so. This way, testsuite results are clean.
I'll have to further i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49314
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-17 13:09:06 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2011-06-17 13:04:17 UTC ---
> Could this pr be related to pr49441?
No: the iconv functions only li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36610
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-17 13:23:39 UTC ---
> --- Comment #23 from Nicola Pero 2011-06-14
> 18:26:40 UTC ---
[...]
> Summarizing, I would close the bug, or leave it open but just to remind m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49314
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-17 14:06:12 UTC ---
> pr49441 is a totally different issue. That bug manifests itself as a runtime
> error with unresolved symbols from libiconv. I still don't unders
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49314
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-17 16:15:55 UTC ---
Further investigation revealed part of what's going on: the test in
gnu::gcj::convert::IOConverter::iconv_init fails with EINVAL on Tru64
UNIX, but the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49314
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-20 14:30:11 UTC ---
> Does http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01375.html have any impact
> on
> this bug?
No, as I said, the md5test and shatest executables are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47333
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-20 14:42:12 UTC ---
As a further datapoint, I've configured mainline with gas 2.21, but with
HAVE_GAS_WEAKREF removed from auto-host.h. (Setting the autoconf
configure variab
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49260
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-20 14:51:07 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2011-06-06
> 11:18:43 UTC ---
>> I'm seeing this when using Sun as on Solaris, but not with GNU as 2.21, ev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49314
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-21 12:09:30 UTC ---
> The question now is what's a clean fix for this issue, rather than
> hardcoding the result?
I've now checked this with native and GNU iconv: f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49511
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-27 16:43:12 UTC ---
Dave,
> The problem is type invokes the sh-posix shell and it aliases type
> to 'whence -v'.
>
> 599 (hiauly1)dave> /bin/sh
> $ when
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49511
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-28 17:58:01 UTC ---
> 505 (hiauly1)dave> /bin/sh
> $ type -p gnatmake 2>/dev/null
> gnatmake is /opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-3.3.4/bin/gnatmake
> $ echo $?
> 0
Drats, s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49555
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-29 08:58:43 UTC ---
>> * why do you insist on specifying the symvers flavor manually?
>
> "I" didn't insist on specifying it manually. crosstool-ng did.
&g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49555
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-29 09:03:46 UTC ---
> Sure. Re-reading comment #3, maybe I sounded a bit brass.
No problem, I can stand some heat :-)
>> > * why do you insist on specifying the sy
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46660
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-06-29 13:39:32 UTC ---
> This caused:
>
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is 7.0
> FAIL: libffi.call/cls_double_va.c -O2 -fomit-frame-po
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49568
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-01 08:48:07 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-07-01 08:40:13
> UTC ---
[...]
> I believed that thunks always belong to same comdat group as the function t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49568
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-01 10:03:24 UTC ---
> The declaration of the destructor itself do have COMDAT flag.
> The following patch should fix the problem:
> Ind
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49555
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-01 14:07:55 UTC ---
> --- Comment #7 from Bryan Hundven 2011-06-29
> 19:30:03 UTC ---
[...]
> So, Yann found that sh4 did not need this option anymore, and he has since
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49568
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-04 17:24:39 UTC ---
> The following patch should fix the problem:
> Index: ipa.c
> ===
> --- ipa.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-06 14:06:59 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou 2011-07-06
> 08:52:17 UTC ---
> Rainer, any idea to solve this?
One comment up front: It's best to directly
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49660
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-06 15:01:11 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab 2011-07-06
> 14:52:04 UTC ---
> I think you want to implement --with-cpu-(32|64) like x86 and powerpc.
This m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49660
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-06 15:24:51 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab 2011-07-06
> 15:16:47 UTC ---
> I think the proper handling of this is part of the --with-cpu-(32|64)
> framewo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48727
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-07 13:04:18 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2011-07-06
> 19:15:49 UTC ---
>> This also fails on 32-bit Solaris/SPARC with Sun as, which has:
>>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49680
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-11 10:19:24 UTC ---
> --- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson 2011-07-08
> 23:36:57 UTC ---
> Rainer, please give me the command-line for this. I can't seem to
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49737
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-13 17:00:22 UTC ---
> # If the gcc directory specifies which extra parts to
> # build for this target, and the libgcc configuration also
> # specifies, make sure they match.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49737
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-13 17:10:14 UTC ---
> rm -f ../../.././gcc/i386/libgcc_s_x86_64.1.dylib
> ln -s libgcc_s.1.dylib \
> ../../.././gcc/i386/libgcc_s_x86_64.1.dylib
> rm -f ../../.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49737
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-13 17:43:32 UTC ---
> --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres
> 2011-07-13 17:39:51 UTC ---
>> With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-13 17:56:26 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou 2011-07-13
> 16:11:25 UTC ---
>> Since I could only run the bootstrap on a Solaris 8 branded zone where th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49737
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-13 18:20:48 UTC ---
> I am now at stage 2.
Great. Please close the PR one bootstrap finished.
Thanks.
Rainer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49739
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-14 09:18:14 UTC ---
>> It doesn't work and build failed much earlier:
>
> Patch is missing '}'.
Thanks for fixing this. That's what you get for pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-14 17:08:09 UTC ---
> Same here, but the link line starts with:
>
> /nile.build/botcazou/gcc-head/sparc-sun-solaris2.8/gcc/collect2 -V -Y
> P,/lib/sparcv9:/usr/lib/sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49541
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-15 12:01:02 UTC ---
> The problem is that the testsuite (lib/libgomp.exp) unconditionally
> links with -lgomp even for the -fno-openmp testcases. I'd argue that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45351
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-19 13:57:43 UTC ---
I see what's happening now: the unaligned access is happending inside
librt (sem_wait), with uac p noprint nofix sigbus:
Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45351
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-19 15:23:47 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Jay 2011-07-19 15:15:46
> UTC ---
> Is there no annotation in /usr/include/whatever.h to get the required
> alignment? Ma
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45351
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-19 16:57:00 UTC ---
> Do struct alignment rules on Tru64 have an effect? Not that I
> looked-up/read the ABI details..
I had a look at `Calling Standard for Alpha Systems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #82 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 11:32:42 UTC ---
> --- Comment #81 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-21 09:52:11 UTC ---
> Marc and Rainer, if you have proposals for Solaris, I think this is the right
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #84 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 12:14:17 UTC ---
> --- Comment #83 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-21 12:08:32 UTC ---
> Ok, thus I marked 30112 as blocking this, I'll try to raise its priority.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #86 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-21 12:44:59 UTC ---
> --- Comment #85 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-21 12:34:21 UTC ---
> Fair enough, and I should really find the time to go again through the entire
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49815
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-22 13:14:39 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou 2011-07-22
> 13:07:18 UTC ---
>> Solaris/SPARC bootstrap is currently broken:
>
> Java though, which is p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49815
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-22 15:14:13 UTC ---
> If you still have the build tree around, would you mind checking that it fixes
> the problem? For example, apply it to the tree, run 'make quick
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47393
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-22 17:02:11 UTC ---
> --- Comment #8 from Cary Coutant 2011-07-22
> 16:49:11 UTC ---
> Why not just remove the test entirely instead of XFAIL it? The functionality
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45351
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-22 17:04:33 UTC ---
To make completely sure that this isn't a gcc problem of some sort, I've
derived a testcase from libgomp. If built with cc -c99 or gcc, it show
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #88 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-25 17:02:45 UTC ---
> --- Comment #87 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-07-22 21:49:49 UTC ---
> Now the pragma issue is solved. Good. I don't know Rainer if that mea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47407
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-27 16:24:19 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Jambor 2011-07-27
> 14:18:12 UTC ---
> Like for many other targets that skip this test, the value of
> MOVE_RATIO of th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49887
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-28 14:52:35 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-28
> 14:45:11 UTC ---
> So, how are the group signature symbols supposed to be emitted on
> SPARC/Solar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49887
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-29 12:58:25 UTC ---
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2011-07-28 14:52:35 UTC ---
>> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49887
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-07-29 16:10:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-07-29
> 13:06:13 UTC ---
> Emit that in targetm.asm_out.file_end () instead?
Seems to work according to a q
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #96 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-01 12:31:54 UTC ---
> --- Comment #90 from Marc Glisse
> 2011-07-30 20:19:42 UTC ---
> How does one go about reporting a bug in solaris? In Solaris 11, with
Not anym
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #97 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-01 12:52:50 UTC ---
> --- Comment #91 from Marc Glisse
> 2011-07-30 21:02:20 UTC ---
> solaris also provides the pow(*,int) overloads (see DR550). Should these be
> fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-02 11:09:56 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Hin-Tak Leung
> 2011-08-02 11:03:23 UTC ---
>> Apart from that, why are you wasting your time with GCC 4.4 which I don'
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44959
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-02 11:11:00 UTC ---
> Not a subdir - a parallel directory.
>
> source is at /home/htl10/tmp-build/gcc-4.5.1
> obj dir is at /home/htl10/tmp-build/gcc-451-dir
Di
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-03 11:37:17 UTC ---
> last part of output:
> ---
> libtool: link: /home/htl10/tmp-build/gcc-446-obj/gcc/gcj
> -B/home/htl10/tmp-build/gcc-446-obj/a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #102 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-03 15:12:29 UTC ---
> --- Comment #101 from Paolo Carlini
> 2011-08-03 10:02:44 UTC ---
> Thanks Marc. Thus, it seems to me that Rainer should have a look to the
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40947
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-03 15:42:46 UTC ---
>> > Invalid flag usage: Wl,-rpath, -Wx,-option must appear after
>> > -_SYSTYPE_SVR4
>
>> What I do see is that if you add so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-03 16:26:45 UTC ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-03
> 15:10:13 UTC ---
> for task-8.C, error is a function on linux, so please replace it by errval
> or e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-03 16:50:27 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-03
> 16:37:36 UTC ---
> So what values it printed? Did it print -2.0 and 9.0 in some iterations?
H
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-04 10:55:04 UTC ---
> Okay... did the plain configure and make and no relative path, and watching my
> 4.6.1 "make -k check" - I'll be summiting the result l
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-04 10:56:24 UTC ---
> Please ignore last comment 6. With 4.6.1:
>
> === libgomp Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes2586
> # of unsupported tests
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48841
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-09 12:16:59 UTC ---
> I don't think it is the path, but it is possible I just didn't notice a
> not-enough temp space error; the other possibillity is some
> tra
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1773
--- Comment #113 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-09 12:56:20 UTC ---
As you've probably seen, I've cleaned up and tested Marc's patches over
the weekend, threw some more testing (Solaris 8/9/10) in yesterday,
and pos
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49965
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-08-09 15:10:25 UTC ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-08-03
> 16:37:36 UTC ---
> So what values it printed? Did it print -2.0 and 9.0 in some iterations?
> The f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70980
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> Can't reproduce the problem with current trunk of x86_64-linux-gnu.
Seems the ICE went away after 20160506 (either hidd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71816
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
> Created attachment 38870
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38870&action=edit
> untested patch
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71917
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
The failures are obviously caused by
2016-07-13 Matthew Fortune
* java/lang/reflect/natVMProxy.cc (unbox): Use ffi_arg for
integer return types smaller than a word
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72833
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
[...]
> I see we had previously a solaris_longjmp_noreturn
> fixinclude rule, maybe that would be a starting point.
Certainly: up to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72833
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> Could you please attach a faulty setjmp.h and a good setjmp.h
>
> I'm attachin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72833
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
[...]
> Completely untested patch.
>
> Based on the gcc-4.9 solaris patch:
> just s/solaris/darwin/
> and s/__NORETURN/__dead
901 - 1000 of 1428 matches
Mail list logo
