By: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: ia64-linux
GCC host triplet: ia64-linux
GCC target triplet: ia64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20632
omit-frame-pointer should have no effect on ia64
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: davidm at hpl dot
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-12-20 22:13
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Without a test case, nobody can give this bug a proper look. Can you
> provide an example of how this fails for you?
Sorry, that was sloppy of me. I'll attach a m
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-12-20 20:12
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Jim, David, can one of you look at this, and maybe revert the patch
> for PR13158 because it causes this regression?
Reverting the patch doesn't sound like a good idea,
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
GCC host triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
GCC target triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18749
rst instruction in each procedure isn't unwindable
Product: gcc
Version: 3.3.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: davidm a
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-11-30 20:23
---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Well if _init/_fini is created by the linker then isn't this a linker bug
which should generated the unwind
> info?
I don't really care which way it goes.
When the
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-11-30 20:03
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> when gcc builds crtbegin/crtend, we do pass -fno-exceptions but in the
backend, we set
> flag_asynchronous_unwind_tables to 1 if we have not set it yet but we don'
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-11-30 20:01
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> What gcc are you using also since the version you filed in as unkown?
$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib64/gcc-lib/x86_64-suse-linux/3.3.3/specs
Configured with: ../config
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-suse-linux
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-11-12 06:01
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Since I don't have access to an IA64 machine could you submit/regtest the
patch which removes the
> aligned_p test?
Just removing the aligned_p won't do the t
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |web
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18443
UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: ia64-linux
GCC host triplet: ia64-linux
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-11-04 18:06 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 02:24, davidm at hpl dot hp dot com wrote:
> > # of unexpected failures115
>
> This is a lot more failures than we should have. I
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-28 09:27 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I've now checked the patch into mainline.
Thanks!
> Adding the patch to gcc-3.4 requires that it be a regression. This doesn't
> seem to qualify ac
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-28 09:24 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Perhaps I should have read your message closer. I get timeouts for this
> testcase also. However, it bootstraps fine, and the total number of
> unexpected gcc failures i
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-27 11:04 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Subject: Re: bad unwind info due to multiple returns
> (missing epilogue)
>
> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 01:49, davidm at hpl dot hp dot com wrote:
> > The comp
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-26 08:49 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> You didn't say what kind of problems you ran into with gcc mainline.
The compiler seemed to get stuck in an apparent endless loop. "make check"
quickly r
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-22 16:25 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Subject: Re: bad unwind info as a result of sibcall
>
> I tried testing the patch, and ended up with 2 extra libjava failures.
I was able to reproduce the libjava failu
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-22 10:57 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Argh, I reran "make check-g++" with the original (unpatched) GCC and am now
seeing 3 unexpected failures (when the exact same compiler produced 0 failures
yesterday). From
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-21 18:03 ---
OK, I tried this patch on the CVS gcc-3_4_branch (the 4.0 branch didn't work at
all for me, even in it's pristine version). As you said, the patch does fix the
bug I reported. In addition, the t
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-19 18:08 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Subject: Re: New: bad unwind info due to multiple
> returns (missing epilogue)
> On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 04:14, davidm at hpl dot hp dot com wrote:
> > To fi
--- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-15 11:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=7356)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7356&action=view)
test-ptrace-misc.c
Test case.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18010
ignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com
CC: davidm at hpl dot hp dot com,gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot
org,wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: ia64-hp-linux
GCC host triplet: ia64-hp-linux
GCC tar
24 matches
Mail list logo
