--- Comment #1 from ian at airs dot com 2010-01-12 07:20 ---
With the current development version of gold, I don't see any differences like
this. I see symbols like omp_destroy_lock@@OMP_3.0, which is slightly
different from the reported omp_destroy_l...@omp_3.0. I'm not sure what
prog
--- Comment #3 from ian at airs dot com 2010-01-12 07:14 ---
As far as I can tell, everything works fine with the current development
version of gold. If you find more problems, please reopen with more details,
such as the parts of the {gcc,g++}.log file for one of the failing lists.
Hi Matthias,
Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> I'll go through the list of build failures this week, trying to file
> appropriate bug reports for GCC or the distribution. Please let me know if
> somebody wants to work on this list as well.
Please don't forget to usertag the reports. Using the "ftbfs-gcc
--- Comment #24 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-01-12 00:58 ---
Never mind, when I copied (and modified) the x86 tests for ia64 I forgot to put
a 'return 0' at the end of the main program so I was getting a non-zero exit.
I will test my patch tonight and if all looks good submit it
--- Comment #23 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-01-12 00:41
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> I am looking at this on IA64 and fixing it for V2SI seems simple enough.
> I will attach a patch. But I am not sure what to do for V4HI and V8QI.
> The current code uses an 'unsigned
--- Comment #22 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-01-11 23:33 ---
I am looking at this on IA64 and fixing it for V2SI seems simple enough.
I will attach a patch. But I am not sure what to do for V4HI and V8QI.
The current code uses an 'unsigned saturating subtraction' and that
seem
--- Comment #21 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-01-11 23:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=19544)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19544&action=view)
ia64 patch (fixes int, not short or char)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42542
--- You are
Matthias Klose (11/01/2010):
> I'll go through the list of build failures this week, trying to file
> appropriate bug reports for GCC or the distribution. Please let me
> know if somebody wants to work on this list as well.
Hi,
I might want to join this kind of effort for next runs: I might have
sent with wrong CC ...
On 11.01.2010 19:19, Matthias Klose wrote:
[please note this is lucid+1 material, not targeted for lucid, but
you're welcome to fix things already for lucid]
A rebuild test of the current Debian unstable distribution on
x86_64-linux-gnu was done, one rebuild test with the
A rebuild test of the current Debian unstable distribution on x86_64-linux-gnu
was done, one rebuild test with the current gcc-4.4 from the branch, and another
one with GCC trunk 20100107. The latter did show about 200 additional build
failures, which are listed in [1] (minus some already known
On 07.12.2008 03:38, brian m. carlson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 01:56:54AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
please forwarded these upstream, mudflap doesn't see much attention.
Apparently, they're already forwarded. It's just that nobody's doing
anything about them. The mudflap code, as imple
* Nathael Pajani | 2010-01-08 09:13:29 [+0100]:
>> looks like this is a new port. won't fix in GCC for the powerpc port.
>The e500 core is no new port, it is powerpc it just misses one
>"lwsync" instruction used in libstdc++6 (this seems to be a bug in
>the e500 powerpc core)
It is not just the lw
12 matches
Mail list logo
