Hi all,
while testing some patches fro Michael M, I noticed that
disable-checking seems broken on trunk. I saw this on x86_64-freebsd and
powerpc64-freebsd.
Is this issue already known?
If not, usual bug report with preprocessed source?
TIA;
Andreas
Here the details:
-
On 09/22/2012 07:11 AM, bd satish wrote:
Hi,
Here is the output of (gcc -v):
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/user/installed/gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.2/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure
Hi,
Thanks to Zeman, here is the output of (gcc -v -fmudflap file.cc -lmudflap):
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/user/foss/installed/gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.2/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure
On 21.09.2012 23:08, bd satish wrote:
g++ -fmudflap references.cc -lmudflap
you have to install mudflap to use it (it is suggested by the gcc-4.7 package).
sudo apt-get install libmudflap0-4.7-dev
Hi Matthias,
The error is from GCC which I built on my own (as mentioned in my
first post), not installed from a package manager. It all works ok
with the system compiler though (Debian 6.0 has gcc 4.4.5).
Thanks Regards,
Satish
On 22 September 2012 14:50, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
Larry Evans cppljev...@suddenlink.net ha scritto:
The above was a private email I sent to Christopher. Since then,
similar results were reported here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/24145
So, I thought the g++ template implementors might be interested
in
$ ../configure --with-gmp=/usr --with-mpfr=/usr --with-mpc=/usr
--prefix=/u/gnu/proj/gcc-git/_i \
--enable-languages=c,c++,ftn --enable-bootstrap
[...]
Try the --with-gmp, --with-mpfr and/or --with-mpc options to specify
their locations. Source code for these libraries can be found at
Are you looking for gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org?
On Sat, 22 Sep 2012, Bruce Korb wrote:
$ ../configure --with-gmp=/usr --with-mpfr=/usr --with-mpc=/usr
--prefix=/u/gnu/proj/gcc-git/_i \
--enable-languages=c,c++,ftn --enable-bootstrap
[...]
Try the --with-gmp, --with-mpfr and/or --with-mpc options
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
And now for something completely different.
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20120922 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20120922/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 09/22/12 15:02, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Are you looking for gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org?
mpc-devel ? (not my platform, I don't even know if that package exists, but
your grep pattern excludes such a package)
yes, it is
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Bruce Korb bruce.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/22/12 15:02, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr wrote:
Are you looking for gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org?
mpc-devel ? (not my platform, I don't even know if that package
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
Gabriel Dos Reis
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:59 PM
To: Bruce Korb
Cc: gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org; GCC
Subject: Re: --with-gmp, --with-mpfr and/or --with-mpc
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54625
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-09-22 08:06:55 UTC ---
Here is another example (this one triggers the same gcc_assert as in HJ's
regression report):
markus@x4 moz_lto_debug % test.i
float a;
double
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
Bug #: 54667
Summary: [OOP] gimplification failure with c_f_pointer
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 08:39:44 UTC ---
The dump for comment 0 shows (with -fdump-tree-original):
MAIN__ ()
{
void * cself;
struct __class_MAIN___Nc_p self;
self = (struct __class_MAIN___Nc_p *)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47099
Andris Pavenis andris.pavenis at iki dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 08:53:51 UTC ---
The question is if it is really valid. At first sight both F03 and F08 only
specify that FPTR, i.e. the second argument to C_F_POINTER, shall be a pointer
with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
--with-bugurl=http://bugs.gentoo.org/
--with-pkgversion='Gentoo 4.8.0_pre'
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0-pre 20120922 (experimental) commit
f09a218261ba473738ad45f2c643957523019a17 (Gentoo 4.8.0_pre)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 10:32:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Andrew, have you tried your test case with any other compilers?
ifort 12.1 and Oracle Studio 12.3 seem to accept the test case without
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54599
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22
10:32:58 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sat Sep 22 10:32:51 2012
New Revision: 191640
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191640
Log:
2012-09-22 Thomas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54599
Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54668
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47616
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47616
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Bug #: 54669
Summary: [4.8 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed: BB 5
last statement has incorrectly set lp with
-fnon-call-exceptions
Classification: Unclassified
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45440
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-09-22
12:37:41 UTC ---
*** Bug 47616 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47616
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54668
--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-09-22
12:40:00 UTC ---
As a duplicate of pr45440, a work around is (see pr45440#c4):
allocate(b(3), source=a)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54372
--- Comment #6 from Kohei Takahashi flast at flast dot jp 2012-09-22 13:06:32
UTC ---
I tested on x86_64-linux-gnu and works fine.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 13:18:31 UTC ---
Moreover there is a typo in the documentation of C_F_POINTER:
Index: gcc/fortran/intrinsic.texi
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Marek Polacek polacek at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek polacek at redhat dot com 2012-09-22
14:22:46 UTC ---
With very slightly modified testcase:
int a[10];
void
foo (void)
{
int x;
int i;
for (i = 0; i 1;)
{
int b[3];
for (i = 0; i 4; i++)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Starke daniel.f.starke at freenet dot de
2012-09-22 16:00:03 UTC ---
It seems to be partly a gcc autoconfig macro issue. Seeing the following in
gcc/acinclude.m4
dnl See if symbolic links work and if not, try
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54007
--- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22
16:46:35 UTC ---
Author: danglin
Date: Sat Sep 22 16:46:29 2012
New Revision: 191644
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=191644
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54007
John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--enable-e500_double
--with-long-double-128
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120922 (experimental) [trunk revision 191643] (GCC)
$ ./xgcc -B. ~/ice.i -O
/home/ryan/ice.i: In function 'TrioWriteDouble':
/home/ryan/ice.i:47:20: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Benson abensonca at gmail dot com 2012-09-22
16:59:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
While it would be nontrivial to fully enforce these constraints by a runtime
check, I think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Benson abensonca at gmail dot com 2012-09-22
17:02:06 UTC ---
Thanks for clarifying this. It does look like this is invalid according to the
standard. I'll think of another way to do what I was trying to do.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54618
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
--- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22
17:08:08 UTC ---
Incomplete but mostly finished draft patches:
https://userpage.physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/final/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22
18:38:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The only other compiler I have access to is ifort 11.1 (which also accepts
it),
so that doesn't add much unfortunately.
As do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54671
Bug #: 54671
Summary: gcc 4.7.2 -Wl,--no-ctors-in-init-array causes binutils
test failure, works with 4.7.1
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54671
--- Comment #1 from ncahill_alt at yahoo dot com 2012-09-22 19:00:06 UTC ---
gcc -v:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.7.2/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.2/lto-wrapper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 19:02:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
From Fortran 2008 15.2.3.6 and 15.2.3.3:
CPTR shall be a scalar of type C PTR. It is an INTENT (IN) argument. Its value
shall be
* the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54667
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Benson abensonca at gmail dot com 2012-09-22
19:39:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
From Fortran 2008 15.2.3.6 and 15.2.3.3:
CPTR shall be a scalar of type C PTR. It is an INTENT
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54606
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22
19:46:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
References cannot be assigned in C++, your code just triggers undefined
behavior.
More to the point it is not undefined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek polacek at redhat dot com 2012-09-22
20:03:59 UTC ---
It happens in cunrolli pass. It might be propagate_constants_for_unrolling.
It seems we eventually end up removing BB 9 and 11, which might be wrong.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54599
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-09-22
21:48:01 UTC ---
interface.c: gfc_compare_derived_types BUG
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45440
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2012-09-22
21:57:52 UTC ---
If I apply the following patch
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/resolve.c2012-09-17 15:50:08.0 +0200
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54524
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22
22:26:37 UTC ---
I think this code:
/* (LTU/GEU (PLUS a C) C), where C is constant, can be simplified to
(GEU/LTU a -C). Likewise for (LTU/GEU (PLUS a C) a).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54672
Bug #: 54672
Summary: \x00 hexadecimal
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52162
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54107
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-22 22:29:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #4)
I would assume that this is invalid, since the declaration of
compute_routine's
interface is somehow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54672
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54673
Bug #: 54673
Summary: [SH] Unnecessary sign extension of logical operation
results
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53922
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
Bug #: 54674
Summary: ICE in build2_stat, at tree.c:3835
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52122
Andris Pavenis andris.pavenis at iki dot fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
This patch to the Go frontend fixes a dumb error that was preventing the
correct determination of argument types to the builtin complex function.
Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Committed to mainline and 4.7 branch.
Ian
diff -r 293c1db1ef35 go/expressions.cc
---
It is valid to store a NaN in a Go hash table. However, the result can
not be looked up, because NaN never equals NaN. The only way to see the
result is to range over the map. This means that the hash code used for
a NaN is irrelevant. In general it's better to not hash all NaN values
to the
In Go if the type of the left operand a shift operand must be determined
from context, it gets the type of the overall expression, ignoring the
type of the right operand. It is then an error if it does not get a
integral type. However, it is also OK if it gets an interface type.
The compiler was
This patch to the Go frontend and libgo rejects surrogate pairs when
converting an int to a string. They are not valid UTF-8. The patch
also rejects a negative int--negative ints were already rejected by the
compiler, but not by the runtime. Bootstrapped and ran Go testsuite on
Similar to the last patch, this rejects a surrogate pair, which is
invalid UTF-8, when doing a range over a string. Bootstrapped and ran
Go testsuite on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Committed to mainline and 4.7
branch.
Ian
diff -r 2a400cc3eae6 libgo/runtime/go-rune.c
---
On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 14:59 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
This patch adds some typedef printers to libstdc++.
This relies on a gdb patch that hasn't yet gone in (pending on the list).
If the gdb patch changes, I'll change these printers as well.
The basic idea is that you can now have gdb
I wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01293.html
pretty self-explanatory. No test case because there is no change
in behavior. OK for trunk?
Hi Thomas,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01293.html
pretty self-explanatory. No test case because there is no change
in behavior. OK for trunk?
looks good to me. Thanks for the patch!
Cheers,
Janus
Vector compare testcases can't be compiled with 4.7- - vector compares
are not implemented for C++ there. As observed, BLKmode compare is not
triggered for alpha in the whole testsuite, as far as release branches
are concerned.
Then there is no real reason to touch the release branches in my
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
Vector compare testcases can't be compiled with 4.7- - vector compares
are not implemented for C++ there. As observed, BLKmode compare is not
triggered for alpha in the whole testsuite, as far as release branches
are
Hello,
this patch removes one copy of a block of code that somehow ended up
duplicated. Richard Henderson apparently already fixed part of the problem
here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00120.html
but missed this bit (or was it a different patch?).
Not yet tested (seems
Huh? Sorry. Don't know what else to say:
Per: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitMirror
$ git svn init -Ttrunk --prefix=origin/ svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc
Network connection closed unexpectedly: Unable to connect to a repository at \
URL 'svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc': To better debug SSH
On 09/22/12 12:49, Bruce Korb wrote:
Huh? Sorry. Don't know what else to say:
Similar results using straight up svn:
$ bash contrib/gcc_update
Updating SVN tree
svn: E155036: Please see the 'svn upgrade' command
svn: E155036: Working copy '/u/gnu/proj/gcc-svn' is too old (format 10, created
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Bruce Korb bruce.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/22/12 12:49, Bruce Korb wrote:
Huh? Sorry. Don't know what else to say:
Similar results using straight up svn:
$ bash contrib/gcc_update
Updating SVN tree
svn: E155036: Please see the 'svn upgrade' command
Well, the current code assumes that the replacements are gimple
register types and, perhaps more importantly, it assumes there are no
to-be-replaced pieces within to-be-replaced pieces. If we were to put
a structure outside of a frame structure and scalarize some field
within it at the same
Hi Gaby,
On 09/22/12 13:07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
SVN is behaving unexpectedly. Help, please?
Have you upgraded your system or SVN recently?
Not deliberately. :) Switched openSuSE releases (12.2 now).
If yes, you need to issue the command
$ svn upgrade
It's been crunching on
As demonstrated by the testcase, the new propagate_constants_for_unrolling can
change the EH properties of a statement when it turns array accesses with
variable index into array accesses with fixed index if -fnon-call-exception is
enabled.
The proposed fix is to call
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Bruce Korb bruce.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gaby,
On 09/22/12 13:07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
SVN is behaving unexpectedly. Help, please?
Have you upgraded your system or SVN recently?
Not deliberately. :) Switched openSuSE releases (12.2 now).
yeah, I have
Hello,
this patch lets forwprop fold bit_field_refs of constructors. It is
particularly useful in forwprop4, which happens after the pass that lowers
unsupported vector operations. Indeed, that pass keeps breaking vectors
into pieces and reconstructing them for each operation, which is a
Hi all,
this patch fixes an ICE recently reported by Andrew Benson. It does so
by rejecting polymorphic arguments to the C_F_POINTER intrinsic. For
discussion and standard references, please refer to the PR and today's
email thread.
Apart from fixing this PR, the patch modifies two other error
Hi Tobias,
This patch fixes a couple of issues, I run into when working on FINAL
subroutines.
a) PR54618:
(i) For a nonallocatable CLASS(...),INTENT(OUT), gfortran is setting the the
_def_init; however, for OPTIONAL this has to be guarded by an is-present
check.
(ii) For
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, sell...@mips.com wrote:
2012-09-17 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com
* MAINTAINERS (Various Maintainers): Add libbacktrace.
* configure.ac (host_libs): Add libbacktrace.
(target_libraries): Add libbacktrace.
* Makefile.def (host_modules): Add
The attached patch eliminates the failures in linkage of the new
gcc.dg/torture/pr53922.c testcase on darwin by passing
-Wl,-undefined,dynamic_lookup
to the linker as recommended by the darwin linker developer...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2012-09/msg01802.html
Tested on
89 matches
Mail list logo
