http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #24 from Mike Stump 2011-02-22
11:56:37 UTC ---
Iain reports it is fixed for him as well... :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #23 from Mike Stump 2011-02-22
11:53:56 UTC ---
I am confused, both Iain and myself still see failures on ppc even with my
patch. Iain said they were dying on BUILT_IN_SQRTL. I can't debug, as I'm
using rosetta, and apparently debug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #22 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-02-22 10:44:47 UTC ---
At revision 170376 (comment #21), the "fix" of revision 170339 (comment #6)
seems no longer needed on powerpc-apple-darwin9 and x86_64-apple-darwin10,
i.e., after reverting rev
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #21 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-21
21:38:23 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon Feb 21 21:38:21 2011
New Revision: 170376
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170376
Log:
PR target/47822
* config/darwin-pro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #20 from Mike Stump 2011-02-21
21:02:16 UTC ---
Ah, never mind, we have another thread going where the problem was pointed out.
Sorry for missing it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #19 from Mike Stump 2011-02-21
20:58:35 UTC ---
? The patch does touch rs6000 is the same way as we touch i386. I think there
is an additional issue on ppc. My previous patch is necessary, but not
sufficient. So, if someone has a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-21
10:44:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > > Could you try building with the patch on a ppc box if you have one,
> > > without the
> > > "Fix" to tree.c in it, so t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe 2011-02-21 10:08:51
UTC ---
there was no intention to create a hack (or any other form of expedient work);
... if it is wrong, then it is likely a mistake on my part when importing the
original implementation
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-02-21 10:03:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> > Could you try building with the patch on a ppc box if you have one, without
> > the
> > "Fix" to tree.c in it, so that it will fail, if the probl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-21
09:44:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Could you try building with the patch on a ppc box if you have one, without
> the
> "Fix" to tree.c in it, so that it will fail, if the problem isn't r
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #14 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-21
04:09:52 UTC ---
*** Bug 47826 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-02-20 19:40:18 UTC ---
> Could you try building with the patch on a ppc box if you have one, without
> the
> "Fix" to tree.c in it, so that it will fail, if the problem isn't really
> fixed.
I hav
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #11 from Mike Stump 2011-02-20
19:23:07 UTC ---
Could you try building with the patch on a ppc box if you have one, without the
"Fix" to tree.c in it, so that it will fail, if the problem isn't really fixed.
If you don't, then a seco
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres
2011-02-20 19:12:31 UTC ---
> Dominique, can you try a build on ppc?
Mike, could you be more precise: do you want me to test the patch in comment #8
before or after updating to revision 170339 (which fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #8 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-20
18:10:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 23415
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23415
darwin patch (moxie is unrelated)
Here is a darwin patch. Not my code, but if I understand
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-20
17:15:55 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Feb 20 17:15:53 2011
New Revision: 170339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170339
Log:
2011-02-20 Richard Guenther
PR lto/478
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-20
15:33:56 UTC ---
It will show on all targets without a builtin_decl hook and target builtins.
x86 is no such target, it shows there because of the darwin builtin not
playing by the rules.
I will f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-02-20
15:19:41 UTC ---
Well, the problem does not seem fully darwin specific. It also shows on
moxie-unknown-elf and may be to some extent on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-02-20
15:05:00 UTC ---
Huh. WTF is this builtin used for at all??
int main()
{
return __builtin___CFStringMakeConstantString ("Hello");
}
and at gimple stage we already have
main ()
{
int D.2718;
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47822
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||*-darwin*
Status|UNCONFIRM
24 matches
Mail list logo
