https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #14 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13)
> I've completed the sparc64-linux comparison now: no regressions with a
> non-bootstrap build and your patches either, thus the same
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
[...]
>> * sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu (again, c and c++ only): there are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
> > --- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> >> The failure is even earlier here: in a sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu
> >> bootstrap,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #9)
>> > --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #9)
> > --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE > Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> >> --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> [...]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
[...]
>> versions.) BTW, it'd be nice to know it it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> BTW, I see the target list says sparc*-sun-solaris2.11 which seems a cutnpasto
> from some ancient template: that particular version is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>
>> You should use cfarm216 instead: it's way faster than the others and
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
BTW, I see the target list says sparc*-sun-solaris2.11 which seems a cutnpasto
from some ancient template: that particular version is installed on cfarm211
and a build log for a recent gcc checkout
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
> You should use cfarm216 instead: it's way faster than the others and
> runs Solaris 11.4, which is the only OS release supported on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> Aldy, when investigating PR ipa/114985, got along with just
>
> configure && make -j128 && make
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> Sorry. I bet something in reorg actually uses a barrier insn as a reference.
> I'll revert those three patches unless I can fix the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |15.0
15 matches
Mail list logo
