--- Comment #14 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-29 21:14 ---
The first two sentences of your comment was never disputed by either myself nor
from how I read Mr Torvald's comment.
The only thing under dispute is the completely unwarrented trnasformation of a
subtraction
--- Comment #16 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-29 21:42 ---
A treaty is a bilateral agreement. No something shoved down one Side throat.
The worse I look the more I accomplish for others than GCC fanatics
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #18 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-29 22:19 ---
As I am clearly rejected by the GCC insiders in my attempts to help make the C
compiler more attuned to the spirit of the C99 committee; I am now forced to
alert the user community of what is happening with a near
--- Comment #20 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-29 23:53 ---
Ping
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #23 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-30 00:18 ---
Segher was mentioned twice. First, according to my research he is not a kernel
maintainer as implied in comments 4 and 9. He is actuallu Segher Boessenkool, a
GCC maintainer, inactive since 2005-02-01, his latest
--- Comment #24 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-30 00:22 ---
Mr. Torvalds has already answered in comment 1
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-27 16:44 ---
I read that the last word ___unfortunate___ means that to hell with the
users;
We hold fast to our principles
So now we have two cases that gcc-4.3.x pretty irrelevant. The is that inane
transformation
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-27 20:43 ---
This appears to be the essence of what I wanted note per 3) in comment 3
In going from pdf to html via pdftohtml I was forced to do some realigning and
erase special symbols by hand. If you do not trust go
--- Comment #8 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-27 21:34 ---
Glad it hit the spot and hopefully alerted the user community as to what is
going on.
Now, how about doing something about transforming a clearly expressed
subtraction into a udivdi3. To the best of my knowledge
--- Comment #12 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-28 03:53 ---
Mr Pinski! Thanks for again doing the work for me.
I just had to take some time out for my annual checkup and to rebuild my big
machine's software after Gentoo on shutdown -h now deleted my /bin, /etc, and
/sbin
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-28 04:45 ---
Iam soory Mr. Schwab but the fno-builtin was provide to me by a fellow
maintainer I am just exhausting all offered approaches to avoid having a
subtraction changed to a libgcc-function/builtin
The flag just disables
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 10:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=13782)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13782action=view)
standrd *.i file
drivers/acpi/ec.c:124: sorry, unimplemented: inlining failed in call to
'acpi_ec_write_cmd
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32494
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 12:50 ---
Ping?
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 12:35 ---
Ping?
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #8 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 13:03 ---
Ping?
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux.gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux.gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux.gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32496
dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32501
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 16:38 ---
I want to reiterate that I am as little a linux-kernel maintainer as I am a GCC
maintainer. The linux-kernel is in excellent hands and does not need me. Out of
sheer laziness and/or intellectual poverty the example
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 16:39 ---
ping
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32501
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 16:39 ---
ping
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #7 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 16:52 ---
ping
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #10 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 17:01 ---
ping
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rguenth
--- Comment #9 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-25 17:02 ---
Read the standard
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #19 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-23 15:39 ---
Thank you Mr Hubicka for solving this. I had earlier used your patch from
comment 16 but i had to apply it by hand as my patch-2.5.9 (Larry Wall) would
take that published patch even after html2text; changing
--- Comment #15 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-22 12:51 ---
After you solve that there is that little matter of udivdi3.
udivdi3?
In comment 7 somebody (dcb) remarked about PR31654 (marked duplicate to this
bug) was impeding kernel compilation. In comment 10
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-21 08:08 ---
Disclosure:
I am not an IBM hater and never was. My first significant program ran on an IBM
1410 with a Tape Operating System (TOS) on the day President Kennedy was
assassinated. I then used an IBM 1620 II
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-21 14:33 ---
Thanks for helping out again. Enjoy Japan. I was there quite often, dealing
with NEC and Mitsubishi, but as a buyer representative for for multi-million $
projects. At that level it was pleasure to do business, even
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-21 21:13 ---
After you solve that there is that little matter of udivdi3.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31541
--- Comment #14 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-21 00:53 ---
This whole series of postings from myself had one aim:
to _shame_ Messrs David Edelsohn an Geoff Keating to step up to their
resposibilities. You, Pinski, are not listed as a maintainer for RS600; they
are.
Mr
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC target triplet: any architecture
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32447
--- Comment #12 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-19 23:57 ---
Why is this still unconfirmed after the corrobation by Mrs Johnson?
Personally I could not care less if it is swept under the rug, like so many
other
PR's. Without-altivec would suit me fine as altivec is, to me
--- Comment #9 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-17 18:01 ---
Thank you for your very informative post.
What we have between us is really a philosophical difference.
To me C is a portable assembler and my extensive review of Ritchie's writings
and acceptance speech
--- Comment #10 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-17 23:29 ---
Let me reiterate: I am not admitted to the bar in any USA state, nor
the District of Columbia. Hence, I can not and I am not offering
any legal advice. For legal advice see a lawyer admitted to the bar.
Yes, I have
--- Comment #12 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-18 00:06 ---
Did you even read comment 9?
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32387
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-18 02:47 ---
I am not making this request lightheartedly.
POINTER_PLUS was developed on a branch and went in very cleanly.
I always stressed to my students that that A good theory is a most practical
thing I just happen
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-18 02:53 ---
I realize that good things do not come easy.
I also believe there is over-reliance on regression among the gcc-insiders.
Enhancement has a priority below trivial and I am jut requesting a study of an
enhancement
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-18 03:15 ---
Hey, more good news about POINTER_PLUS. It might help smoke out bugs in other
parts of GCC. I hope these can be labeled as so called regressions so that
people will be forced to work on them.
Concerning non
--- Comment #7 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-16 13:08 ---
It is good to be challenged, as it forces clarification of the issues. It is
also good to let some grass grow instead of just charging ahead.
Putting the legal and philosophical ramifications aside and considering
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-17 00:14 ---
Thank you Mrs Johnson for putting in (by my reckoning) an inordinate amount of
hours to put some bounds on this problems.
I am sure you are aware of the old adage A stitch in time saves nine. If some
developer
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-14 19:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=13704)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13704action=view)
standard preprocessed
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32347
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-14 21:42 ---
Smart comment, unfortunately it is wrong. I spotted this myself and quickly
rebootstrapped gcc the results are:
Reading specs from /var/tmp/gcc_r43/build-26/gcc/specs
Target: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-14 21:50 ---
This is just a more conspicuous case as evidenced looking at the data below.
The almost 2:1 worse results for the powerpc show up day after day, month after
month.
Powerpc G4 gcc-4.3.0-20070613 check results
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-13 06:06 ---
Maybe some people should read __carefully__ both the C standard and the new
GPL3
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-13 07:09 ---
All I want for gcc is that it meets both the letter __and__ the spirit of
applicable contracts and specifications.
First, the GPL is a contract, do __not__ take my word for it but consult a
lawyer.
Second, the C
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnugcc-4disable-decimal-float not working
on i686,
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
Severity|normal
--- Comment #9 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-05 13:44 ---
Mr. Tobler
Thanks for pursuing this. For me. as a user, it is solved. My analysis, as an
outsider, points to the corruption, inadvertent chang, update malfunction of an
include file shared by the *.c files leading
: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-gnu-org
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-gnu-org
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-gnu-org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32209
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-04 20:42 ---
Confirmation on different architecture (powerpc-linux-gnu G4) doing an *.nm
comparison as follows: on c-common.o
16c16
00017d5c t add_tlist
---
00017d60 t add_tlist
60c60
00018ca0 T c_add_case_label
---
00018ca4
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-04 20:56 ---
Took the liberty of adding Prof Sikora and the release manager, Could not add
MR
Zedenek Dvorak (refusla by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to be a case Maintainers no doing the required bootstraps. I am
amazed
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-04 21:56 ---
Here is the build machinery used on the powerpc: There were two changes made to
prior runs that caused no boot failures:
BUILD was incresed from 11 to 12
form enable-languages c++, fortran were removed as being
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-05 01:29 ---
Fantastic; My stupidity in copying the disable-checking from one of the dozen
top distributors (which make experimental gcc-4.x.y available, patched them
with gcc-3.x.y stuff and referred users to contact gcc
--- Comment #13 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-24 14:08 ---
Mr Guenther!
Thank you (herzlichen Dank) for the information about the hopefully disabling
flag. If that information would have been posted after my initial intervention
we could have saved a lot of bandwidth
--- Comment #10 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-23 13:17 ---
Mr. Guenther!
The volatile fix would be fine, but (at least for me) does not work with the
kernel. There is that little message:
kernel/time.c:479: warning: passing argument 3 of 'div_long_rem_signed'
discards
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-23 14:51 ---
Mr. Ibanez!
Thank you (muchas gracias) for looking at the matter from a user's point of
view and considering my arguments concerning __builtin_expect. You seem to be
the first to look at the timings and amount
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux.gnu
GCC host triplet
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-22 17:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=13601)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13601action=view)
*.s files
I believe that the *.s files in this case a superior to the *.i files
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-22 17:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=13602)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13602action=view)
*.s files for gcc-4.2
*.s files generated by gcc-4.2.1 as more responsive to the intent and superior
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-23 01:06 ---
I did try changing #define 10Ul to its rightful hexadecimal value
#define 0x3b9aca00UL. the results are:
.file rmgg.c
.globl __udivdi3
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl rmg
.type
--- Comment #7 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-23 02:09 ---
Thank you Mr Taylor; your suggestion to use volatile certainly work in this
drastically reduced test case. If it will work when nsec is part of a kernel
structure I will leave to the experts. I, certainly, know
: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31990
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 18:57 ---
Andy there you go again:
Irrelevancies and make work for others.
You folks at gcc made tons of changes in gcc-4.3 regarding machine definitions
and similar. I have some evidence that some blatant mistakes were
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 21:11 ---
Andy!
Taking your your advice to calm down I looked for the built-in.c file you
wanted preprocessed. Well, it does not exist as built-in.o is a composite
object file.
The Kernel peoople being a more helpful and b
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 22:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=13580)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13580action=view)
time.i form ./kernel/time.c
first requested attachment
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31990
--- Comment #7 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 23:10 ---
Created an attachment (id=13581)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13581action=view)
timekeeping.i from ./kernel/time/timekeeping.c
Second requested attachemnt.
Observation:
You might just as well
--- Comment #9 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-18 23:45 ---
Mr Pinski
I give up. I hereby formally request that you, Mr. Pinksi, refrain from having
anything to do with problem reports originating from myself (Rainer
Malitzke-Goes alias Ray Malitzke). I rather see them
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-19 02:02 ---
Well, this is getting funny.
You and apparently others at gcc are looking at the computer-sofware world
through a high powered telescope and in this drastically reduced field of
vision you-all only see gcc. I
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: same
GCC host triplet: i868-pc-linux-gnu: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: same
http
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-05-02 00:20 ---
I accept that there is something wrong on my side. Be it forward or
backward.
However, there are some things that I still do not understand.
Cmake was compiled several times with different bootstrapped gcc-4.2.0
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gcc
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gcc
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gcc
http
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-04-11 21:25 ---
Created an attachment (id=13352)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13352action=view)
required i file
Unreduced, as a user of gcc I am not up to the task
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #9 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-04-02 20:39 ---
I believe this report can be closed. I was able to find the start date
(2061125)
or a day later when I could no longer bootstrap. It disappeared towards the end
of January 2007. It prevented bootstrapping on x86
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: powerpc-unknown
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 18:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=12919)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12919action=view)
Detailed out using different optimization levels
I also have similar output using Phase 1 cc1 (also at different
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 18:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=12920)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12920action=view)
Standard preprocessed file
This file was created using the xgcc resulting from phase 2. I have another
file
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 18:52 ---
Prior to patclevel 12900 (about 12880) bootstrap failed even with O1 with
segment error.
For those dismissive folks who either say It works for me or claim that it is
the submitters harware fault I can only aver
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 23:40 ---
Well , the mistery continues.
First when I referred to patchlevels I left out a 0 (zero); 12900 should read
120900.
Second I repeated the bootstrap because a number of patches from Daniel Berlin
looked promising
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-19 00:20 ---
Mr Pinski
I do not appreciate your comment. My comment 3 was really addressed to people
like you who want to garner points as beiong the big killers of problem reports
by using cheap tactics. With four processors
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: *-*-*
GCC host triplet: *-*-*
GCC target triplet: *-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-10-15 19:10 ---
The line is actually in gcc/cgraphunit.c and not graphunit.c (sorry).
cgraphunit.c was subjected to change by Jan Hubicka and Richard Guenther to fix
PR middle-end/29299 on 2006-10-15.
Probably something went
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-10-15 19:46 ---
This shows fantastic turnaroud; even on a weekend. Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29481
--- Comment #13 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-06-15 22:58 ---
Hans_Peter
Your, not mine, concern seems to be comment 3. For that you have to contact
Pinski. I saw a number os inconsitencies in his comments and after the
reception got did not want to pursue this further. My
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-06-15 03:03 ---
Hans-Peter!
Thanks for shedding _some_ light on this murky corner. Perhaps, the i
constraint is now really inapropriate.
First of all, a kernel header appropriately replaces __FUNCTION__ with
__func__. Therefore
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-06-06 03:59 ---
Good to see the GCC release manager looking at things from a user perspective,
and not just looking at an individual leaf in a forest.
Regarding the powerpc specific issues; I was able for just one day to compile
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-05-23 00:49 ---
No need to be offensive.
At the time I was using the the latest kernel available (something like
2.6.15.x or 16.x) I was still able to compile on that dual G4 MAC glibc, as
available from gcc.gnu.org/pub/glibc
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-05-10 14:43 ---
To A Pinski
While I am _not_ a C lawyer, the following seems pertinent:
1 __FUNCTION__ is _not_ a predefined macro. However __func__ a predefined
identifier and I will take this up with the kernel people. However
--- Comment #8 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-05-10 20:17 ---
Well Fellas: Either have the Steering Committee revise the
Invitation to participate in testing; quoted iselectively below.
Or,have a member from the Steering Committe ask me to refrain
from further participation. I
: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc-linux
GCC host triplet: powerpc-linux
GCC target triplet: powerpc-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27528
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-05-10 03:04 ---
There are similar problems with other kernel modules that did not occur before.
It looks like the asm expansion causes problems with some rs6000 work done by
David Edelsohn. Will be glad to assist in solving
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-04-28 16:46 ---
After compiling gcc-4.1.1 successfully on a powerpc and another pentium3
machine it appears that the problem reported was due to bit-rot in the server
and not caught by svn updates. This appears to be confirmed
: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-04-27 20:40 ---
Created an attachment (id=11341)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11341action=view)
Preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27342
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-04-27 20:49 ---
I got it once and did a svn update to 113320 for good measure but still got
apparently the same segmentation fault. However, libgcov.c is processed about
14 times with a different -DLgcove_xxx each time and the error
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-04-27 21:25 ---
Well, Andy, not so fast. Doing:
./xgcc -B./ -c libgcov,i
I get no message and a get a libgcov,o
Anyhow that machine is a four processor server with 2G error corrected memory.
Also I have about 13 other commands
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-04-27 22:03 ---
Further:
I started the gcc-4.1.1 bootstrap with a different gcc (atually now a earlier
4.2.0) and it come up with the same else label does not match edge. The
xgcc now was generated by a different version of gcc
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
