a 3GB e in piu' IMAP, POP3 e SMTP
autenticato? GRATIS solo con Email.it: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Vinci subito fantastici premi, partecipando al gioco alla faccia degli
amici crea la faccia di chi vuoi tu e gioca!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=9867d=20091122
* Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
Ingo, Thomas and Linus,
I know Thomas did a patch to force the -mtune=generic, but just in
case gcc decides to do something crazy again, this patch will catch
it.
Should we try to get this in now?
Very nice example of defensive coding - i
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Ingo, Thomas and Linus,
I know Thomas did a patch to force the -mtune=generic, but just in case
gcc decides to do something crazy again, this patch will catch it.
Should we try to get this in now?
Hello. I would like to get the necessary forms for copyright
assignment to GCC for future work on GNAT. I was told this is the way
to kick off the process.
Thanks for the help.
- John Nowak
Hi :
In function fill_simple_delay_slots, there is following codes:
starts here
/* If there are slots left to fill and our search was stopped by an
unconditional branch, try the insn at the branch target. We can
redirect the
Hi M,
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, g...@coreland.ath.cx wrote:
I'm now doing regular builds/tests from SVN of GCC, G++ and GNAT on
FreeBSD x86_64 and publishing the build logs at:
http://gcc.coreland.ath.cx
would you mind submitting your test results to gcc-testresu...@gcc.gnu.org
going forward?
H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Ingo, Thomas and Linus,
I know Thomas did a patch to force the -mtune=generic, but just in case
gcc decides to do something crazy again, this patch will catch it.
Should we try to get
Hi,
While working on a port for my custom target I'm looking for some
advice on how to define a smaller-than-integer scalar mode.
I'd like to use it together with
__attribute__((__libgcc_cmp_return__)) mode attribute.
In my target xx-modes.def file I have PARTIAL_MODE_INT(SI) defined.
And my
The code is available here:
http://git.coreland.ath.cx/gitweb.cgi?p=pfseudo/.git;a=summary
$ git clone http://git.coreland.ath.cx/pfseudo/.git
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs for instructions on how to report bugs.
--
Eric Botcazou
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20091122 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20091122/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
Steven Rostedt wrote:
Ingo, Thomas and Linus,
I know Thomas did a patch to force the -mtune=generic, but just in case
gcc decides to do
--- Comment #8 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 09:31 ---
Subject: Bug 42113
Author: uros
Date: Sun Nov 22 09:30:50 2009
New Revision: 154423
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154423
Log:
PR target/42113
* config/alpha/alpha.md
--- Comment #4 from evgeny at mainsoft dot com 2009-11-22 09:45 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
This is by design for C++03 but for C++0x (really C++1x) it is not.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41792 ***
Thank you Andrew. I'll follow the bug 41792.
--
--- Comment #9 from toon at moene dot org 2009-11-22 10:20 ---
Richard wondered about this earlier:
countm1.1 = (character(kind=4)) (D.1337 - D.1336) / (character(kind=4))
D.1338;
but perhaps it's better to asked explicitly:
Where does the (character(kind=4)) comes from in this
Version was marked as 4.5.0 but is really SVN r154285.
Currently, C9A009G seems to be failing due to a segmentation fault.
Other tests failed in the last build at:
http://gcc.coreland.ath.cx/r154285_2009-11-18_103532/
...but this appeared to be the simplest.
A backtrace from gdb:
(gdb) r
--- Comment #1 from laurent at guerby dot net 2009-11-22 11:46 ---
Original FAIL message:
,.,. C9A009G ACATS 2.5 09-11-18 11:59:26
C9A009G MASTER COMPLETED BUT NOT TERMINATED.
raised STORAGE_ERROR : s-intman.adb:139 explicit raise
The following tests FAIL the exact same way:
I have a reproducible test case which shows that GCC 4.5 (20091112)
doesn't compile a certain quicksort implementation correctly. It runs
fine, but the sorting is plain wrong when trying to optimize with -O1 or
higher. I have made a reproducible test case. There might be something
wrong with
I have a reproducible test case which shows that GCC 4.5 (20091112) doesn't
compile a certain quicksort implementation correctly. It runs fine, but the
sorting is plain wrong when trying to optimize with -O1 or higher. There might
be something wrong with the quicksort implementation itself, but it
--- Comment #1 from maister at archlinux dot us 2009-11-22 12:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=19080)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19080action=view)
The sorting test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42142
--- Comment #2 from maister at archlinux dot us 2009-11-22 12:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=19081)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19081action=view)
Output with gcc-4.5 and -O
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42142
--- Comment #3 from maister at archlinux dot us 2009-11-22 12:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=19082)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19082action=view)
Output with gcc-4.5, no optimization
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42142
--- Comment #4 from maister at archlinux dot us 2009-11-22 12:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=19083)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19083action=view)
Output from gcc-4.4 with lots of optimizations
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42142
Hi,
When running the libtool regression tests, I get the following error:
gcj -shared -Wl,--whole-archive ./.libs/liba1.a ./.libs/liba2.a
-Wl,--no-whole-archive -Wl,-soname -Wl,liba12.so.0 -o .libs/liba12.so.0.0.0
./.libs/liba2.a(A2.o):(.rodata+0x0): multiple definition of `java resource
Reported by Damian Rouson:
module field_module
implicit none
private
public :: field
type ,abstract :: field
end type
end module
module periodic_5th_order_module
use field_module ,only : field
implicit none
type ,extends(field) :: periodic_5th_order
end type
end module
module
--- Comment #6 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 13:16 ---
Thanks for the quick answer, I'll find another way to do this then...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42132
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 13:46 ---
Draft patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 154423)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c (working copy)
@@
I'm compiling the attached test case with gcc version 4.5.0 20091018
(experimental) [trunk revision 152966] (Ubuntu 20091018-0ubuntu1).
When using the command line gcc -Wuninitialized -Os -o test test_gccbug.c,
I'm getting the following incorrect warning:
test_gccbug.c: In function 'main':
--- Comment #1 from colin at reactos dot org 2009-11-22 14:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=19084)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19084action=view)
The test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
--- Comment #2 from colin at reactos dot org 2009-11-22 14:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=19085)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19085action=view)
The preprocessed test case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42145
--- Comment #7 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 15:19 ---
In std::bind() the call function would be a template function, so argument
deduction is done and SFINAE applies. Changing my testcase to use template
functions gives a different error:
#include utility
using
The test trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/large-size-array-2.c causes ICE on AVR
target.
/* PR c/25309 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options -O2 } */
static char * name[] = {
[0x8000] = bar
};
/* { dg-error too large { target { { ! lp64 } { ! llp64 } } } 6 } */
llp645503.c:2:6:
Test trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr34668-1.c fails with ICE for AVR target.
PR34668-1.c:
/* PR c/34668 */
/* { dg-do compile } */
/* { dg-options --combine -O2 } */
/* { dg-additional-sources pr34668-2.c } */
struct optab { unsigned code; };
extern struct optab optab_table[1];
void
init_optab
with ada.text_io;
generic package my_int_io
renames ada.text_io.integer_io; --ERROR: not a library unit 10.1.1/14
By RM 10.1.1/14: In a library_unit_renaming_declaration, the (old) name
shall denote a library_item. But ada.text_io.integer_io is not a
library_item, so this library_unit
--- Comment #2 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-22 16:41 ---
A couple of people have commented on the anonymous access type
(claiming it causes the crash). Here's a version with it removed
and a gdb backtrace:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
Test trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/matrix/matrix-1.c (and friends) fails with ICE
on AVR target.
Note there is existing open bug PR37165 - but the failure noted was not ICE.
Executing on host: /media/verbatim/gcchead/obj-dir/gcc/xgcc
-B/media/verbatim/gcchead/obj-dir/gcc/
--- Comment #8 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-22 17:02
---
To work around this, can't you move the decltype as default of an additional
template parameter and use result_of for the result type?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42132
--- Comment #3 from john at johnnowak dot com 2009-11-22 17:02 ---
Subject: Re: GNAT appears to misbehave with limited tagged types and possibly
finalization
You know, your code would be a lot better if you didn't use anonymous
access types. (:-))
On Nov 22, 2009, at 11:41 AM, gcc
--- Comment #4 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-22 17:10 ---
Quiet you.
My code might be a lot better if I didn't create dangling references
in the second example.
I think the short example is basically just broken code and entirely
my fault. The code linked to in the git
--- Comment #4 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 17:23 ---
Patch on mainline needs to be backported to 4.4.x branch.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 17:32 ---
I'll try that now. Something like:
templatetypename F
struct Bind
{
F func;
templatetypename... Arg, typename SfinaeT = decltype( declvalF()
(declvalArg()...) )
typename result_ofF(Arg...)::type
--- Comment #10 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-22 17:34
---
Yes, it works nice for me ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42132
--- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 17:37 ---
Using -fcheck=all issues a runtime error.
REMOVE:kargl[218] gfc4x -o z -Wall a2.f90
REMOVE:kargl[219] ./z
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
REMOVE:kargl[220] gfc4x -o z -Wall -fcheck=all a2.f90
REMOVE:kargl[221] ./z
--- Comment #9 from mattst88 at gmail dot com 2009-11-22 17:52 ---
WRT the test suite: should it be
/* { dg-options -O2 } */
or
/* { dg-options -O3 } */
That is, -O2 or -O3? I could only produce the internal compiler error with -O3,
and not at all with -Os, -O0, -O1, -O2.
--
--- Comment #29 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 17:54 ---
The -fpic/-fPIC failures have been fixed long ago in gcc-4.3.x.
Can we close this bug?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 17:58 ---
What remains to be done here?
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:01 ---
Still fails
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last
--- Comment #2 from grosser at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=19086)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19086action=view)
First try - Needs cleanup
I got a patch that fixes both the small C++ testcase and the dealII. It needs
just
--- Comment #10 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-11-22 18:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] Internal Compiler
error with -O3, breaking commit known
On 11/22/2009 06:52 PM, mattst88 at gmail dot com wrote:
--- Comment #9 from mattst88 at gmail dot com 2009-11-22
--- Comment #5 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-22 18:37 ---
Closing this bug as the discussion has become confused between
two separate issues, one of them apparently invalid.
--
gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx changed:
What|Removed
I'm working on a small project to create an abstraction over directories
and archives. I've managed to write some code that seems simple enough
(using tagged limited types) and even though the code appears to be valid,
it seems to either trigger bugs in the runtime (causing crashes on execution)
--- Comment #1 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:42 ---
We only accept self contained reproducers, and preeferably with a straight gcc
command rather than levels of Makefiles/scripts on top of it.
So can you please file the needed files (and no more) as well as the
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:56 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 39959 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:56
---
*** Bug 42147 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:56
---
Also see PR 41807 for related info.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20923
--- Comment #3 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 18:57
---
Fixed on 4.5
Revision 152958
2009-10-17 Andy Hutchinson hutchinsona...@aim.com
* config/avr.md (*movqi): Add zero as equally preferable constraint as general
register.
(*movhi): Ditto.
--
--- Comment #11 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22
18:59 ---
Fixed.
--
hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:02
---
Fixed 4.5
--
hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:04 ---
Do loop with HUGE stepsize:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/63348a0461ccf3e0
Current status is that g77 prints 0 and gfortran prints 1.
To add: NAG f95, g95, sunf95, and ifort
--- Comment #3 from hutchinsonandy at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:04
---
Fixed 4.5
Back port needed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41738
--- Comment #2 from gcc at coreland dot ath dot cx 2009-11-22 19:11 ---
Files here:
http://coreland.ath.cx/tmp/pfseudo_bug.tar.gz
Edit build.sh to point $GCC to whatever's sensible.
Output here:
$ ./build.sh
+ GCC=/gnat/svn/builds/r154285/bin/gcc-r154285
+
I just tried to compile Suse Linux package libxml2-2.7.3-3.1
with gcc version 4.5 snapshot 20091119 and the build said
tree.c:1629:1: error: caller edge frequency 789 does not match BB freqency 1577
tree.c:1629:1: error: edge
--- Comment #1 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-11-22 19:13 ---
Created an attachment (id=19087)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19087action=view)
C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42151
--- Comment #30 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-22 19:13
---
Nope, let's keep it open as a reminder that we are still missing
__is_convertible_to and the newer ones, needed to implement N2984 (I'm
implementing three as we are speaking)
--
paolo dot carlini at
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2009-11-22 19:13:48
--- Comment #7 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:26 ---
Presuming fixed by the patch I identified since no other comments.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:31 ---
I don't think this is an appropriate feature; I advice arranging for your
source files to go through an external preprocessor before compiling them
if you need this special sequence at the start of the file.
--
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:36 ---
Fixed by:
2009-06-15 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com
* c.opt (Wjump-misses-init): New warning.
* c-opts.c (c_common_handle_option): Set warn_jump_misses_init for
-Wall and -Wc++-compat if
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:52 ---
The magic option to allow system headers not to be present (for an early
compiler in a series of multiple compiler/libc builds / header installs
to bootstrap a full toolchain) is --with-newlib, but this should be
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:55 ---
Not a GCC bug, the POSIX list generally agreed the effects of reordering
system directories should be unspecified or undefined.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:57 ---
Cannot reproduce this, report bugs in the Ubuntu compiler in the first
instance to Ubuntu.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:58 ---
As discussed, not a bug.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 20:00 ---
I think this would be a sensible feature to add.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 20:01 ---
The PR logs indicate this is fixed.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 20:04 ---
No bug by the GNU C documentation of how attributes bind in the syntax.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 20:16 ---
I cannot reproduce this with any FSF GCC version; please report bugs in
Ubuntu compilers to Ubuntu.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 20:18 ---
Report this to whoever provided you with that compiler and advised
modifying specs files. Specs files are not a public interface for
modifying by compiler users, and 4.2 compilers are no longer supported.
If you can
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #2 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 20:24 ---
If you wish to report a C++ bug, it needs to have component c++ and be
a separate bug from any bug report for C front-end issues; comments
about possible C++ front-end issues in c bugs are irrelevant except insofar
as
debug/anonunion1.C, -gdwarf-2 -g1
Executing on host:
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc45-4.4.999-20091122/darwin_objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc45-4.4.999-20091122/darwin_objdir/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc45-4.4.999-20091122/gcc-4.5-20091122/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-11-22 21:52 ---
See pr41988 for i686-apple-darwin9 in 32 bit mode.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42152
--- Comment #1 from simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 21:53
---
Patch submitted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01204.html
--
simartin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-22
22:11 ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin9, I have these failures at r152510 for -m32.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41988
--- Comment #12 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-22
22:27 ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin10, I didn't see this on 20091002 but I did on 20091003.
Unfortunately, I don't have an exact revision number on that, however it is
most likely r152434.
--
--- Comment #13 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-22
22:32 ---
The last build I have from 20091002 without the problem is most likely r152421
which would bracket us between that and r152434 with the first recorded
failure. This would leave the LTO merge itself and
--- Comment #14 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
00:16 ---
This problem doesn't occur at r152433 but appears at r152434 so it is due to
the LTO merge.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41988
--- Comment #15 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
00:31 ---
Is anyone able to get a backtrace on this failure? I am not having much luck
setting a breakpoint on dwarf2out_frame_debug() in dwarf2out.c so that I can
step through this and get a backtrace.
--
/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/
-B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc
-4.5.0/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/bin/
-B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.5.0/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11
/lib/ -isystem /opt/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.5.0/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/include -isystem
/op
t/gnu/gcc/gcc-4.5.0/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/sys-include
--- Comment #16 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2009-11-23
01:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=19088)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19088action=view)
step from dwarf2out_frame_debug breakpoint
step from dwarf2out_frame_debug breakpoint for...
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 03:06
---
This appears to fix this with no regressions. I will commit as obvious
tomorrow.
Index: decl.c
===
--- decl.c (revision 154430)
+++ decl.c
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-23 03:10
---
This is also failing on x86-64. It is not target specific unless there is
another PR for the x86-64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41664
--- Comment #7 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2009-11-23 04:51 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Not a GCC bug, the POSIX list generally agreed the effects of reordering
system directories should be unspecified or undefined.
What the POSIX list says does not matter if this doesn't go
Laurent,
This one is for you, caused by revision 154407 (you should also double check
other linux implementations for similar issues). TIA.
/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/gcc/objdir/./gcc/
-B/opt/gnu/gcc/gcc
-4.5.0/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11/bin/
--- Comment #1 from charlet at adacore dot com 2009-11-23 07:44 ---
Subject: Re: New: s-osinte.adb:46:21: missing body for
To_Duration declared at s-osinte.ads:216
Laurent,
This one is for you, caused by revision 154407 (you should also double check
other linux
96 matches
Mail list logo
