https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Just threw this into my tester. Figure ~90 minutes to get back the cross
> results.
Thanks!
> I assume that if we go forward that you'll handle putting together a
> regression test since it's Ada
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115739
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
The fix is OK for mainline, thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115630
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115666
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
I probably should have said "but nobody should write this sort of code."
|1
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Please try with newer versions, 14.x at least or else mainline.
|NEW
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-27
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Confirmed, but nobody should write this sort of things.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115608
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.2
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Jeff, this looks like an obvious fix given the comment just above the modified
code, but only a maintainer can probably assess that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115608
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
Right, but Solaris does it automatically so Linux can probably mimic it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115608
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115608
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-24
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
The immediate fix is:
diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
index c17141d909a..5e34dc92210 100644
--- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv.cc
@@ -1702,7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115591
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
I'll have a closer look.
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
I'll have a closer look.
|representation under|component
|certain conditions |
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Build_Elementary_Put_Image_Call uses the signedness of the base type
for
|unicode strings |Wide_Wide_Value with wide
||enumeration literal
Last reconfirmed||2024-06-18
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87332
Bug 87332 depends on bug 109817, which changed state.
Bug 109817 Summary: internal error in ICF pass on Ada interfaces
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109817
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109817
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.2|15.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114710
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115376
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
> After trying and several attempts to find a small reproducer, I'm afraid
> that I won't be able to provide better help than the ALS team could.
Note that a small reproducer is not mandatory, so it's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.4
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e54d90911858174a0c528d2c06198bc2061b3b22
commit r13-8829-ge54d90911858174a0c528d2c06198bc2061b3b22
Author: Javier Miranda
Date: Thu Apr 18 09:54:22 2024 +
ada:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a1bec0455fb6f871bbc2c80d6e19c90deebbf824
commit r14-10298-ga1bec0455fb6f871bbc2c80d6e19c90deebbf824
Author: Javier Miranda
Date: Thu Apr 18 09:54:22 2024 +
ada:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114398
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:add6d89eaed4070803882b9a0b643d963ca8d80a
commit r15-1158-gadd6d89eaed4070803882b9a0b643d963ca8d80a
Author: Javier Miranda
Date: Thu Apr 18 09:54:22 2024 +
ada:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115376
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
What crash do you get though? AFAICS it's a standard Constraint_Error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115305
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
They might come from https://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gcc-gitref.cgi?r=r15-615 and,
in particular, the change made to libgnarl/s-osinte__darwin.ads, in which case
the way out would be to duplicate
||2024-05-31
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Thanks for creating the PR.
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-30
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
Can you post the list of ACATS regressions on the 32-bit host?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115270
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115270
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 58304
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58304=edit
Tentative fix
Please give it a try when you have a chance.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115270
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115235
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Hi, can you clarify what you mean? Why does -gsplit-dwarf without -gdwarf-5
> emit in debug fission with extended dwarf-4 if it's specifically dealing
> with dwarf 5?
The sentence is indeed a bit
|RESOLVED
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
The implementation of -gsplit-dwarf deals specifically with DWARF 5 and later.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, do you want to handle the final bootstrap+regression test? Or do you
> want me to take it from here?
I can do it right now.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This apparently comes from the fix for PR target/111235: the following code:
int data[4];
void init (unsigned int lb
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 58255
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58255=edit
Tentative fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|target |rtl-optimization
Keywords|EH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> However, I will comment that it maybe built but there are cats regressions
> (1) on x86_64, (2) on i686-darwin17 (many) on i686-darwin9. No idea what
> caused those at the moment - and my hardware is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58229|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78664
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, thanks for the explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #58228|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 58228
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58228=edit
Tentative fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-17
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115105
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
See also PR ada/115106.
|1
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-16
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The reghunt identified
>
> commit 9b7cad5884f21cc5783075be0043777448db3fab
> Author:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115105
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2024-05-15
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64835
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, gcc.dg/ipa/iinline-attr.c XPASSes on 64-bit SPARC since
>
> commit ffabce849033e57ebaf60029822b81e981681c21
> Author: Eric Botcazou
> Date: Tue Nov 29 11:43:32 2022 +0100
>
> Couple of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Tentative fixlet:
diff --git a/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc b/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc
index 2e15b05529e..84b9623058b 100644
--- a/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc
+++ b/gcc/fold-mem-offsets.cc
@@ -491,7 +491,7 @@
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's the -ffold-mem-offsets pass messing up with the prologue and the
frame-related instructions (so -fno-fold-mem-offsets is a workaround).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115038
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15614
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114964
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114582
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81087
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
There is a fix in the pipeline for GCC 15, although I'm not sure if it will
handle all the issues.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114864
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Another instance is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100453
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114864
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Yes, this is a known issue in SRA, see PR optimization/111873, but it
apparently shows up only with nonsensical combinations of switches so, well...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap (both multilibs) has just completed
> successfully without regressions.
>
> However, sparc/sol2.h needed an #undef to fix
>
> In file included from ./tm.h:27,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
OK, thanks, let's go ahead for Solaris then, but I agree that we'd better do
nothing for other platforms at this point.
Do you happen to have some spare cycles to conduct a testing cycle of the above
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
Rainer, what's your take on this? Should we proceed and change the ABI on
Solaris for GCC 14?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
This appears to be sufficient:
diff --git a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb
index 04d114694ab..f81380846e0 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb
@@ -6076,6 +6076,12 @@
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
I'll have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114710
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114708
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
I'll test the above fixlet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114640
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
This appears to be sufficient:
diff --git a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb
index 04d114694ab..71cfdd718e0 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/exp_util.adb
@@ -6549,6 +6549,7 @@
of
|function call |if-statement containing
||if-expression
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114636
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ebotcazou at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114636
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
This appears to be sufficient:
diff --git a/gcc/ada/sem_ch12.adb b/gcc/ada/sem_ch12.adb
index e7b759c4e88..c06377ab4c9 100644
--- a/gcc/ada/sem_ch12.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/sem_ch12.adb
@@ -6696,8 +6696,12 @@
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou ---
This comes from the formal discrete types and has probably never worked.
||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|Failed type conversion on |[11/12/13/14 regression]
|non-tagged derived type |bogus error on type
|inside a generic unit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106813
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114550
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114415
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ---
Nice work indeed, in an area that clearly needed it, thanks!
Something potentially problematic though:
+package body System.CRTL is
+
+ -- In GNAT, Duration'Size = 64.
+ function Duration_To_int64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109817
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
It's not visible in release builds and testing shows that it's a very rare
situation in practice, so no real need IMO.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78664
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412
--- Comment #44 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Thank you, Dmitry, but that particular solution may not be possible for me.
> When I try compiling with -mstackrealign -mpreferred-stack-boundary=5
> -mincoming-stack-boundary=5 instead of forcing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Thank you for the proposed fix! I tested it with several programs that I
> used to find/reproduce the issue and it seems to work now (I talked about
> this with Rainer initially).
OK, thanks for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Hmm, I just realized that you referred to the same sections, so my previous
> comment might not make it clearer...
Yes, the fields in question have array types so the rules about scalar values
do not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112787
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670
Bug 88670 depends on bug 112787, which changed state.
Bug 112787 Summary: Codegen regression of large GCC vector extensions when
enabling SVE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112787
What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Created attachment 57806
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57806=edit
Tentative fix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114424
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ---
But s-osprim__posix2008.adb dies not use gettimeofday, does it ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114416
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
My reading is that the ABI has overlooked this case though, so it is up to the
implementation to make its opinion. That of the vendor's compiler is probably
more in line with the spirit of the calling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114424
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
Any file whose name contain "posix2008" should be used in lieu of the simple
"posix" variant, but that apparently makes only two of them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
*** Bug 114424 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
|--- |DUPLICATE
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Why don"t you use s-osprim__posix2008.adb if you use s-parame__posix2008.ads?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 114065 ***
1 - 100 of 5343 matches
Mail list logo
