https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97974
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:936d500dfc17f58f2507ecd0f7f26e4f197052ee
commit r11-8120-g936d500dfc17f58f2507ecd0f7f26e4f197052ee
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
Here lookup got confused by finding a conversion operator from
lookup_anon_field. Let's avoid this by pruning functions from
CLASSTYPE_MEMBER_VEC as well as TYPE_FIELDS.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
PR c++/97974
* decl.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100028
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100028
Bug ID: 100028
Summary: arm64 failure to generate bfxil
Product: gcc
Version: 10.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84006
José Rui Faustino de Sousa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jrfsousa at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100027
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055922.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100025
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055921.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100024
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Patch posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055921.html
Hi All!
Proposed patch to:
PR84006 - [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in storage_size() with CLASS entity
PR100027 - ICE on storage_size with polymorphic argument
Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Add branch to if clause to handle polymorphic objects, not sure if I got
all possible
ter (or allocatable) array argument.
Tested on:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 11.0.1 20210410 (experimental)
GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.3.1 20210410
GNU Fortran (GCC) 9.3.1 20210410
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
José Rui
Please move these off-topic discussions somewhere else, people are
already annoyed and angry as it is -- on both sides!
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> In fact, the mail boxes of the Steering Committee's members are
> stored on their corporate servers.
You keep making statements which are simply wrong.
None of my GCC-related e-mails touch the servers of my employer,
nor servers under the control of
Snapshot gcc-10-20210410 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20210410/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> GCC is clearly an US-only project.
This is simply incorrect.
> A US-corporate one. Totally SFW (in the US).
As is this.
> This is not intended as an insult.
> It's just a fact.
Ex falso quodlibet.
Gerald
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
> I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
> much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.
There are a number of people arguing here who have contributed little
to nothing to GCC, whose names
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100026
cqwrteur changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100026
Bug ID: 100026
Summary: cross GCC from clang fails: configure: error: *** A
compiler with support for C++11 language features is
required.
Product: gcc
Version:
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 8:10 AM
> From: "Richard Kenner"
> To: rodg...@appliantology.com
> Cc: david.br...@hesbynett.no, dim...@gmx.com, g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> > So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> > anything of value
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 21:10 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2021, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote:
>
> > It is called "actions have consequences".
>
> FTR, what consequences do you believe would be adequate for such actions
> as spreading difamatory rumors about an innocent person?
>
>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:52 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Pankaj Jangid"
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-10 09:01, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> > It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it? :-D
> >
> > Indeed you
Hi all!
Proposed patch to PR100024 & PR100025 - ICE on missing polymorphic argument.
Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Remove assertion checking for possible assumed rank arrays and added an
explicit error message.
Change if clause to allow the handling of assumed-rank arrays as
all with missing explicit interface.
Tested on:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 11.0.1 20210410 (experimental)
GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.3.1 20210410
Does not ICE on:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 9.3.1 20210410
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
José Rui
all with missing explicit interface.
Tested on:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 11.0.1 20210410 (experimental)
GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.3.1 20210410
Does not ICE on:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 9.3.1 20210410
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
José Rui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100018
--- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa ---
Path posted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055916.html
On 10/04/21 17:37, Tobias Burnus wrote:
And you need an additional single-line summary for git – which should be
part of the patch submission.
Fortran: Fix ICE due to referencing a NULL pointer [PR100018]
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
PR fortran/100018
* resolve.c: Add association check
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98800
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82198676c80764ca7cf05f891afaee83b9179dd1
commit r11-8118-g82198676c80764ca7cf05f891afaee83b9179dd1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97399
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:82198676c80764ca7cf05f891afaee83b9179dd1
commit r11-8118-g82198676c80764ca7cf05f891afaee83b9179dd1
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
Here instantiation of the fake 'this' parameter we used when parsing the
trailing return type of func() was failing because there is no actual 'this'
parameter in the instantiation. For PR97399 I told Patrick to do the 'this'
injection even for statics, but now I think I was wrong; the
Successfully bootstrapped & regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Pushed to trunk as r11-8117-gec633d3777bd71f7bde5e671b61ec18e5b7b43ea.
gcc/analyzer/ChangeLog:
PR analyzer/100011
* region-model.cc (region_model::on_assignment): Avoid NULL
dereference if ctxt is NULL when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100011
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100011
--- Comment #3 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ec633d3777bd71f7bde5e671b61ec18e5b7b43ea
commit r11-8117-gec633d3777bd71f7bde5e671b61ec18e5b7b43ea
Author: David Malcolm
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Summary|arm:
> But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions.
The SC is the "GNU maintainer" for GCC. The GNU project has oversight on
the maintainers of every GNU project, including GCC. The change to the
web page didn't affect that: RMS still has oversight on the SC's
> So, that's a solid 'no' on the likelihood of you contributing
> anything of value to the discussion of GCC governance then?
I really think that most of the people replying on this thread have a
much more encompassing view of "GCC governance" than actually exists.
Here, in C++17 mode, we only pedwarn about the use of alias CTAD and
then later ICE from alias_ctad_tweaks when attempting to add a
constraint to one of the guides. Since the construction of the guides
of an alias template effectively relies on concepts, we shouldn't be
permissive about alias
On 2021-04-10 09:01, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it? :-D
Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like
Nathan.
Just not to everybody else.
I share with Nathan an interest in making GCC the best C++ compiler and
standard library,
On Apr 10, 2021, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote:
> It is called "actions have consequences".
FTR, what consequences do you believe would be adequate for such actions
as spreading difamatory rumors about an innocent person?
I ask because some of the people campaigning against RMS have already
At 11:39 AM 4/10/2021 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 11:30, Sidney Marshall
wrote:
>
> When compiling the last few releases of GCC I get many warnings in
> format strings of the form:
>
> ../../gcc-10.3.0/gcc/analyzer/region-model.cc: In member function
> 'void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100023
--- Comment #2 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 50550
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50550=edit
config.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100023
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100023
Bug ID: 100023
Summary: apple target cross compilation: fails configure:
error: cannot compute suffix of object files: cannot
compile
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:34 AM
> From: "David Brown"
> To: "Pankaj Jangid" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 10/04/2021 14:58, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
> >
> > I have never said that the project will survive without maintainers. I
> > just asked you to
On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 21:18 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:19 AM David Malcolm
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 01:59 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
[...]
> > Looking at:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode#Application
> > we don't have a specific format to be
Dear Paul,
sorry for the belate reply. I think you forgot to attach the patch.
Tobias
On 06.04.21 19:08, Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran wrote:
Hi Tobias,
I believe that the attached fixes the problems that you found with
gfc_find_and_cut_at_last_class_ref.
I will test:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100022
--- Comment #1 from 康桓瑋 ---
I think this is a dup of PR 16, correct me if i am wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99212
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
--- Comment #10 from David Malcolm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|fatal error: Cgraph edge|[11 Regression] fatal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100022
Bug ID: 100022
Summary: Parameter packs not expanded with alignas specifier
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Hi José,
On 10.04.21 18:58, José Rui Faustino de Sousa via Fortran wrote:
Proposed patch to PR100018 - ICE on missing polymorphic argument.
Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
LGTM – Thanks for the patch. Two nits:
If you don't want to rely on the author field of git and specify an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99928
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/567838.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403
Bug 87403 depends on bug 100020, which changed state.
Bug 100020 Summary: RFE: Wmisleading-indentation (or similar warning) for
certain missing semicolons?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100020
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100020
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100021
Bug ID: 100021
Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] std::clamp unprofitable
vectorization on -march=nehalem/.../broadwell
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100020
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100020
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89494
--- Comment #30 from Piotr Kubaj ---
With default flags:
during RTL pass: cprop_hardreg
In file included from
/wrkdirs/usr/ports/lang/gcc10-devel/work/gcc-10-20210327/libgcc/unwind-c.c:32:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100019
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
Hi all!
Proposed patch to PR100018 - ICE on missing polymorphic argument.
Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Add association check before de-referencing pointer in order to avoid ICE.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
José Rui
2021-4-10 José Rui Faustino de Sousa
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:14 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-10 08:54, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> <...snip...>
>
> > If you create a very pleasant wonderful
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100019
Bug ID: 100019
Summary: ICE Segmentation fault with try-catch block in lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100020
Bug ID: 100020
Summary: RFE: Wmisleading-indentation (or similar warning) for
certain missing semicolons?
Product: gcc
Version: 11.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On 10/04/2021 14:58, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
>
> I have never said that the project will survive without maintainers. I
> just asked you to count me as well. Success of the project also depends
> on how widely it is used. And you need to look at the reasons why people
> are using it.
>
I think it
) :: that
that => this
return
end subroutine foo
Tested on:
GNU Fortran (GCC) 11.0.1 20210410 (experimental)
GNU Fortran (GCC) 10.3.1 20210410
GNU Fortran (GCC) 9.3.1 20210410
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
José Rui
On 2021-04-10 08:54, Christopher Dimech wrote:
<...snip...>
If you create a very pleasant wonderful atmosphere, everybody behaves
wonderfully. If you create an unpleasant atmosphere, a whole lot of
people act nasty. That's how it is.
This is crux of it really. For many RMS has very much
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 4:01 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Thomas Rodgers" , "Jonathan
> Wakely"
> Cc: "Pankaj Jangid"
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it? :-D
>
> Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:59 AM
> From: "David Malcolm"
> To: "Thomas Rodgers" , "Christopher Dimech"
>
> Cc: g...@gnu.org, "David Brown"
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 08:17 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher
It's fantastic how inclusive you are, isn't it? :-D
Indeed you ARE inclusive to those who share your interests, like Nathan.
Just not to everybody else.
But it's quite obvious, after you removed RMS's oversight on SC's decisions.
And now I'm depicted as a "concern troll", because I don't
On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 08:17 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> > > On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your
> > > missives
> > > on
> > > this topic, hoping for exactly that very thing to occur.
[...]
> On 2021-04-10 07:49,
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:17 AM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "David Brown" , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> >> On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 8:19 AM David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-04-07 at 01:59 +0530, Saloni Garg wrote:
> > Hi, apologies for the delayed reply. I was having some college
> > commitments.
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:22 PM David Malcolm
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 21:41
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100011
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-04-10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99008
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 15:38 John Darrington,
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote:
>
> I would
> very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also
> openly
> exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not*
>
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:37 AM
> From: "David Brown"
> To: "John Darrington"
> Cc: "Christopher Dimech" , "David Malcolm"
> , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
>
>
> On 09/04/2021 20:36, John Darrington wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200,
On 2021-04-09 14:34, Christopher Dimech wrote:
On the contrary, I eagerly await each and every one of your missives
on
this topic, hoping for exactly that very thing to occur.
I do not see how you and your friends at redhat could really get any
value
from it, because being a seeker of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97974
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
On 2021-04-10 05:35, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 12:57 Pankaj Jangid,
wrote:
Jonathan Wakely via Gcc writes:
You are clueless about what the SC actually does, or the control they
have over GCC.
I think, it would be great help if someone can document what the SC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE |[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f7d77bd6d65aa1cf2e195d3776052705c6e636b
commit r11-8116-g9f7d77bd6d65aa1cf2e195d3776052705c6e636b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
Add inline_ignore_target function attribute to inform the compiler that
target specific option mismatch on functions with the always_inline
attribute may be ignored. On x86 targets, this attribute can be used on
integer functions to ignore target non-integer option mismatch.
gcc/c-family/
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 12:27 AM
> From: "David Brown"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "John Darrington" , "David Malcolm"
> , g...@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
>
> On 09/04/2021 20:02, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98800
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P4
Keywords|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98800
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
I'm getting a correct (if obscure) error message before the ICE:
wa.C:4:71: error: use of ‘this’ in a constant expression
4 | template static auto func() -> enable_if_t()>;
|
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote:
I would
very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly
exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with
the GCC project. It does not matter to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100017
--- Comment #5 from cqwrteur ---
Created attachment 50548
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50548=edit
linux build, FreeBSD host, Windows target
The error still exists.
It looks MSVCRT does not always define those C11 cfenv
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 08:13:08AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The following testcase ICEs during error recovery, because finish_decl
> overwrites TREE_TYPE (error_mark_node), which better should stay always
> to be error_mark_node.
>
> Fixed thusly, bootstrapped/regtested on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99812
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Hi,
This patch merges the D front-end implementation with upstream dmd
0450061c8.
D front-end changes:
- Fix ICE in forward referenced type members of structs.
- Fix ICE passing a member template mixin identifier as alias argument.
- Fix ICE when `__traits' prints error involving a
Hi,
This replaces the original and untested support for Windows and OSX, and
is the 90% of the work needed to support libphobos on those targets.
The core.thread interface has been updated to accomodate for the same
function might be implemented by any of the platform-dependent modules.
Hi,
This patch updates libphobs build files to compile with
`-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections' where supported, and sets
SECTION_FLAGS accordingly, to take advantage of the smaller executables
that can be had with `--gc-sections'.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on
Hi,
This patch updates the default flags to explicitly use
`-static-libphobos' in the druntime.exp and phobos.exp test scripts.
Linking to libphobos statically is the default in the driver, however
this may change in future. Be explicit that the static libphobos is
what's being tested.
Hi,
This patch removes is-effective-target from the druntime.exp and
phobos.exp test scripts. These tests aren't compiling with `-static',
they're there to verify that the libphobos is functional when linked in
statically.
Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu/-m32/-mx32, and
Hi,
This patch partially reverts a previous change that removed these flags,
just to satisfy running tests on Solaris.
The fix isn't really correct, what should really be done is that the
test modules are compiled in a way that doesn't conflict with the
release library, which would also allow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99812
--- Comment #1 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:38258326dc9e5581e2cd6318ae1b5e675dd00d4a
commit r11-8110-g38258326dc9e5581e2cd6318ae1b5e675dd00d4a
Author: Iain Buclaw
Date: Sat
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, 13:50 David Brown, wrote:
> On 09/04/2021 20:02, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> >
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:01 AM
> >> From: "David Brown"
>
> >>
> >> Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or international
> >> politics into the discussion (presumably
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99744
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71958f740f1b8c47a86ea222418abee395d254a0
commit r11-8109-g71958f740f1b8c47a86ea222418abee395d254a0
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Fri Apr 9
Gabriel Ravier via Gcc writes:
>> What is this man? Are you trying to compute the probability of survival
>> a project? You forgot to count me. I am one of the users of GCC. If
>> there are no users then the project is dead; however heavyweight the
>> maintainers are.
>>
>> And let me also tell
Hello there
As a long time GCC user, who is also a father to teenage children, I would
very much prefer if a person who openly expressed opinions, and also openly
exercised behaviours, which I consider abhorrent, was *not* associated with
the GCC project. It does not matter to me what kind of
On 09/04/2021 20:36, John Darrington wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:01:07PM +0200, David Brown wrote:
>
> Different opinions are fine. Bringing national or international
> politics into the discussion (presumably meant to be as an insult) is
> not fine. This is not a
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
