Hello,
we are a small team and would need your help,just click and you've already
helped.We thanks in advance.
Look at our website:
http://www.fleaser.com
Follow us on Twitter
http://twitter.com/fleaser
Send this message to your friends
If you already got mail delete it
Thanks for your
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 7:07 AM, FX fxcoud...@gmail.com wrote:
I know something is going on with section names, so I thought I'd mention
that there is a big regression on darwin (most -flto -fwhopr -O2 tests
fail) at rev. 155544. An example is:
Really lto should be
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, JohnT wrote:
Some of the sites listed on the mirror list
http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html aren't up to date and some aren't
accessible. LaffeyComputer.com doesn't allow access, and used to
require a password for access. This isn't the way a GNU mirror site
ought to
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Dave Korn wrote:
But does it, though? From http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html:
[...]
So, where are whitespace changes to non-comment parts of .c and .h
source files covered? I think that there may be a bit of a common
assumption that obvious extends somewhat further than
Thanks for the information!
How many people would take advantage of special machinery for some old
CPU, if that's your goal?
Some, but I suppose the old machinery will be gone eventually. But,
yes, I am most interested in current processors.
assembly with movupd snipped
On CPUs introduced
Benjamin Redelings I wrote:
Thanks for the information!
Here are several reasons (there are more) why gcc uses 64-bit loads by
default:
1) For a single dot product, the rate of 64-bit data loads roughly
balances the latency of adds to the same register. Parallel dot products
(using 2
The aliasing policies that GCC implements seem to be more strict than
what is in the C99 standard. I am wondering if this is true or whether
I am mistaken (I am not an expert on the standard, so the latter is
definitely possible).
The relevant text is:
An object shall have its stored value
Please consider this patch. It adds support for obtaining file basename via
__FILE_BASENAME__.
This would be used by GNU GRUB. I'll provide some explanation on why this is
very necessary for us:
- Bootloader code is very critical; a bug can render system unbootable.
Additionally, it needs
--- Comment #1 from rmh dot gcc at aybabtu dot com 2010-01-02 10:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=19445)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19445action=view)
__FILE_BASENAME__
Attaching the patch. Also sent to gcc-patches.
--
--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-01-02 10:28 ---
I don't know but I found a tree that generates the 9-instruction sequence, and
it was GCC: (GNU) 4.4.0 20090314 (experimental).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39871
--- Comment #7 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2010-01-02 10:31 ---
(That would be r144855 or r144857).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39871
--- Comment #5 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2010-01-02
10:42 ---
not applying the pr40521-revert-workaround patch shows the ICE as well.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42564
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 11:06 ---
__BASE_FILE__ could be enough for what you want.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42579
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 11:11 ---
Subject: Bug 41597
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jan 2 11:11:37 2010
New Revision: 155563
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155563
Log:
2010-01-02 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 11:18 ---
You may also want to try -fsched-pressure -fschedule-insns which is new
in GCC 4.5 and might decrease register pressure (no idea if it ever moves
things into loops though - the haifa scheduler might not consider it
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 11:25 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #17 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 11:29
---
Yeah, that looks like a good first step.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41564
--- Comment #3 from rmh dot gcc at aybabtu dot com 2010-01-02 11:39 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
__BASE_FILE__ could be enough for what you want.
Hi,
I tried already, but __BASE_FILE__ seems to be something unrelated. It's
like __FILE__ but when used in an #include'd source it picks
--- Comment #22 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-01-02 11:49 ---
Backtrace of the ICE in comment #21 with the patch in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-01/msg0.html
#0 fancy_abort (file=0x100987a08 ../../for_work/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c,
line=4196, function=0x1009f0560
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 12:01 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|dnovillo
--- Comment #9 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 13:25 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
I have a hard way thinking of a way this is a regression.
Well it is partly a regression as if you have libelf installed in /usr/local
or
/usr, configure
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 13:42
---
FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20081201-2 c_lto_20081201-2_0.o-c_lto_20081201-2_1.o execute
-O3 -fwhopr
this means you do not get any LTO optimization (it's really the only test
that tests this )
So LTO is not working for
--- Comment #11 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 13:51 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20081201-2 c_lto_20081201-2_0.o-c_lto_20081201-2_1.o execute
-O3 -fwhopr
this means you do not get any LTO optimization (it's really the only test
that tests this
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-01-02 13:56 ---
Subject: Re: LTO configuration should detect if the
target is ELF
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, davek at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #11 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 13:51
---
(In reply
--- Comment #13 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 13:59 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
The collect2 stuff should in principle work with non-ELF targets
as well if you circumvent that first problem somehow (for
example by not producing regular object code from cc1 but only
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=19446)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19446action=view)
Classic GCSE, resurrected (with some improvements)
With this patch (not bootstrapped/tested/etc.), I get the
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|steven at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:10 ---
For the record, options for compiler to get the asm output of the comments:
-march=armv5te -mthumb -mthumb-interwork -fpic -Os
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42574
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:13
---
Subject: Bug 41529
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jan 2 14:13:37 2010
New Revision: 155565
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155565
Log:
2010-01-02 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:16
---
Fixed. The way to support LTO on non-ELF targets is to wrap all LTO sections
in an ELF container that is wrapped in a native section. We then have to
have code to open a native object format section and direct
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:18 ---
Subject: Bug 42448
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jan 2 14:18:41 2010
New Revision: 155566
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155566
Log:
PR target/42448
* config/alpha/predicates.md
--- Comment #4 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-01-02 14:21 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
However, the goal is to compile gcc for the coff format and
I'm having it difficulties.
Consider the following two facts:
1. binutils-2.17 removed m68k-coff support, that was 3.5 years ago
2.
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:22 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-12/msg02393.html says this is fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:23 ---
Fixed as of http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-12/msg02393.html.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:27 ---
Yes, this is a known issue with LTO and combining C and Fortran code which
accesses commons in both languages.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:28 ---
Subject: Bug 42448
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jan 2 14:28:25 2010
New Revision: 155567
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155567
Log:
PR target/42448
* config/alpha/predicates.md
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:30 ---
With 3 register vars in the function (ebx, edi, esi) on the register starved
ix86 the error is tollerable. From the 8 registers the programmer takes 3,
%esp is fixed, without -fomit-frame-pointer %ebp is fixed too,
--- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:32 ---
Subject: Bug 42448
Author: uros
Date: Sat Jan 2 14:32:23 2010
New Revision: 155568
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155568
Log:
PR target/42448
* config/alpha/predicates.md
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:32 ---
Related to PR41227. But from that it seems we need to fix this up during LTO.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:33 ---
JFTR: I'll be working on this later in January. I'll do it on the
cygwin-improvements branch for visibility.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41529
--- Comment #7 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-01-02 14:34 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:39 ---
Subject: Bug 41651
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jan 2 14:38:57 2010
New Revision: 155569
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155569
Log:
2010-01-02 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:39 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 14:57 ---
I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ami_stuff at o2 dot pl 2010-01-02 15:02 ---
GCC 4.5.0 (20091224): 840KB
When I use -O3 -fno-inline-functions -fno-unswitch-loops
-fno-predictive-commoning -fno-gcse-after-reload -fno-tree-vectorize, size
increases to 944KB.
--
--- Comment #17 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2010-01-02 15:04
---
Subject: Re: LTO configuration should detect if the
target is ELF
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Fixed. The way to support LTO on non-ELF targets is to wrap all LTO sections
in an
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 15:05 ---
Yeah, PR41371.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41371 ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 15:05 ---
*** Bug 42565 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 15:20 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
I don't really see the point of the ELF container if you also have code to
parse a native object format. Either add a separate COFF etc. (or
BFD-using if you so wish) implementation
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 15:57
---
Can you try with --without-build-config? It might be just a compare-debug
failure.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41862
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42258
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:00
---
I'd like to see 1a) for obvious reasons (we'll need that for proper LTO
debuginfo support). But 2) is also sensible.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42388
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42393
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42395
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority|P3 |P2
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42398
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:05 ---
Huh, but this looks like a target problem if we generate invalid assembly.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:06 ---
Testcaese?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42450
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42461
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42462
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42482
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42485
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:13 ---
Confirmed. Doesn't happen on i?86-linux or with -m32.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42521
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
Priority|P3 |P1
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42574
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:23 ---
Fascinating indeed. If someone can bisect where during 4.4 development we
fixed this again or where during 4.3 development we broke it that would be
nice.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #1 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:24 ---
I was able to do a C-only bootstrap of mainline with all three libraries
in-tree on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I used mpc-0.8, mpfr-2.4.2, gmp-4.3.1 and
bootstrapped with gcc-4.3.2. I cannot reproduce this problem,
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:25
---
Wontfix on the 4.3 branch, we usually do not backport accepts-invalid fixes.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.3.4 |4.3.4 4.4.0
Priority|P3 |P2
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Known to
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail|4.3.4 |4.3.4 4.4.2
Priority|P3 |P2
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.3.5 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42289
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:41 ---
It's at least a regression towards where we didn't have array bound warnings.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from developer at sandoe-acoustics dot co dot uk 2010-01-02
16:41 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I was able to do a C-only bootstrap of mainline with all three libraries
in-tree on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I used mpc-0.8, mpfr-2.4.2, gmp-4.3.1
and
...
1. Is this a
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42577
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 16:44 ---
Reduced testcase:
/* { dg-do compile { target { { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } ilp32 } } } */
/* { dg-options -O2 -fno-gcse } */
struct C;
struct B { struct C *b; };
struct C { void (*baz) (struct B *, void *, int); };
When I debug lto1, the missing command line option file generates
a misleading error message and causes ICE:
[...@gnu-34 gcc]$ touch x.s
[...@gnu-34 gcc]$ gcc -c x.s
[...@gnu-34 gcc]$ /export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/lto1 -quiet
-dumpbase x.o -mtune=generic -auxbase-strip
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-01-02 17:06 ---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00064.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-01-02 17:09
---
A patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00065.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 17:12 ---
Subject: Bug 42337
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jan 2 17:12:15 2010
New Revision: 155573
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155573
Log:
2010-01-02 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 17:12 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 17:30 ---
Subject: Bug 42580
Author: hjl
Date: Sat Jan 2 17:30:12 2010
New Revision: 155575
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155575
Log:
Stop if the command line option file is missing
2010-01-02 H.J. Lu
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 17:33
---
I can reproduce on native (and with a cross by stealing the native
auto-host.h).
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-01-02 17:39 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|---
--prefix=/usr/gcc-4.5.0 --with-local-prefix=/usr/local
--with-plugin-ld=ld.gold --enable-gold
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.5.0 20100102 (experimental) (GCC)
COMPILER_PATH=./
LIBRARY_PATH=./:/lib/../lib64/:/usr/lib/../lib64/:/lib/:/usr/lib/
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-B.' '-o' 't' '-fwhopr' '-O' '-fdump
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:15 ---
Subject: Bug 42577
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jan 2 19:14:52 2010
New Revision: 155577
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155577
Log:
2010-01-02 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:15 ---
Fixed on the trunk sofar.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:19 ---
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:24 ---
Similar to PR35392 this only happens with -funsigned-char, thus these may
as well be dups.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:27 ---
Works for me with gcc 4.3.3.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:30 ---
Works with 4.4 and 4.5.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:35 ---
Re-confirmed. The issue is that we fold __builtin_constant_p only after
VRP1 so the dead code remains and we warn about it.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:40
---
Looks like invalid code in the first place.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:42 ---
Fixed in 4.5.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 19:53
---
OK, I can reproduce the issue.
1. I have a GCC trunk (rev. 155544). In there I put symlinks to gmp-4.3.1,
mpfr-2.4.2 and mpc-0.8.1
2. From an empty build directory, I configure with: ../trunk/configure
realpath() built with =gcc-4.3 (where FORTIFY is enabled by default) and -Ox
where x0 cause application to abort.
Test case: the following code built with gcc -O2:
==
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
#include string.h
int
--- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-02 20:02
---
Can you give us:
1. The results of grep '^CXX' Makefile in directories
/Users/ed/obj/powerpc-apple-darwin7.9.0/libstdc++-v3/include and
/Users/ed/obj/powerpc-apple-darwin7.9.0/libstdc++-v3
2. The long
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo