Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But this was never a documented, supported way of doing things;
> nothing that involves hand-editing could be.
Fair enough, as far as my particular case is concerned. But something
new in 4.2 is inserting "-Xcompiler" between "-Xlinker" and the
following argu
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 02:42:22AM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't even think this qualifies as a bug. It's basically an
> > enhancement request, to have a clean way of supporting glibc in
> > an unusual place.
>
> It works in previous versions going back
Hi,
I am not asking right now to merge this branch to the mainline, I think
it needs more eyes on the code. But here is the current status of the
branch.
It bootstraps and tests on i686-linux-gnu with two regressions.
It builds/tests for spu-elf with two regressions (the same as the x86
regr
Hi,
for quite some time we were unable to bootstrap GCC 4.2.x version on
FreeBSD/ia64 with default -O2 optimization flags. The binaries compiler
generates are failing with SIGILL, gengtype tool being the first
victim. GCC 4.1 does not suffer from this issue and this is currently
blocking FreeBSD's
On May 12, 2007, at 6:32 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On 5/11/07, Bill Wendling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This one was just filed against 4.2.0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31903
It is causing LLVM (at least) to fail to build. Do you think it's
worth adding to the list?
Mark Mitchell wrote:
PR 30252: Wrong code generation, perhaps due to the C++ front end's
representation for base classes. Jason, are you actively investigating
this one?
I haven't been; I've been working on the forced unwind stuff, and
looking at the rvalue refs patch. If you want I can work
I think I have found some bugs in genautomata.c
regexp = create_node( sizeof( struct decl));
I believe this should be :-
regexp = create_node( sizeof( struct regexp));
Lines :-
1546
1551
Compare with :-
1576
Aaron
On 5/12/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 5/11/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Every time I think we're almost there with this release, I seem to
>> manage to get stuck. :-( However, we're very close: the only PRs that
>> I'm waiting for are:
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> Whoops. It looks like this:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00449.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00476.html
>
> never got checked in to the 4.2 changes document.
Indeed. I took Jason's excellent description and com
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 5/12/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
PR 31797: An infinite loop in the compiler while building RTEMS.
Daniel, I see you've been commenting on this; are you working on the
fix? If so, do you have an ETA?
Why are you wai
>> Names in anonymous namespaces had external linkage for a long time in
>> G++. Did they have internal linkage in 4.1, or was that introduced
>> (in
>> theory) for 4.2?
>It was introduced in 4.2.
Whoops. It looks like this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00449.html
http://gcc.g
On 5/11/07, Bill Wendling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This one was just filed against 4.2.0:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31903
It is causing LLVM (at least) to fail to build. Do you think it's
worth adding to the list?
You know the regression is not on the 4.2 branch an
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My opinion:
(set (subreg:HI (reg:SI) 2) ...
DF_REF_READ_WRITE?
yep, only case without PARTIAL
Sorry if this is a daft question, but why would it be treated as a read?
I thought that without strict_lowpart, this sort of subreg
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My opinion:
>>> (set (subreg:HI (reg:SI) 2) ...
>>> DF_REF_READ_WRITE?
>
> yep, only case without PARTIAL
Sorry if this is a daft question, but why would it be treated as a read?
I thought that without strict_lowpart, this sort of subreg assignment
was m
On 12 May 2007, at 00:02, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Every time I think we're almost there with this release, I seem to
manage to get stuck. :-( However, we're very close: the only PRs that
I'm waiting for are:
I admit this is not a blocking bug, but it seems fairly (very) easy
to solve... I st
15 matches
Mail list logo
