https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:063ef668c716ae0bf9c0f79ae62243e89075b475
commit r10-10504-g063ef668c716ae0bf9c0f79ae62243e89075b475
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51a34fdff2af99e2bb096436d6872c8ea434d177
commit r11-9668-g51a34fdff2af99e2bb096436d6872c8ea434d177
Author: Peter Bergner
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #13 from Florian Weimer ---
Thanks, I can confirm that we can build the glibc test suite once more in
Fedora rawhide.
(Fedora only needs the GCC 12 fix, it's our first GCC version with the float128
default).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #12 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #11)
> I tested GCC 11 and it fails the same way, so we'll need to backport this
> fix there.
Ditto for GCC 10.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
I tested GCC 11 and it fails the same way, so we'll need to backport this fix
there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb16bc3b5f34733ef9bbf8d2e3acacdecb099a62
commit r12-7485-gcb16bc3b5f34733ef9bbf8d2e3acacdecb099a62
Author: Peter Bergner
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #9 from Peter Bergner ---
Created attachment 52559
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52559&action=edit
Proposed patch
Attaching a patch using Jakub's suggestion. I'm having problems posting it to
the mailing list
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #7)
> Florian, can you confirm that -mlong-double-64 comes after the
> -mabi=ibmlongdouble option in the problematical glibc build?
The mailing list post referenced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I think the glibc problem is in a compiler defaulting to -mabi=ieeelongdouble
> they want to use -mabi=ibmlongdouble -mlong-double-64 (because
> -mabi=ibmlongdou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think the glibc problem is in a compiler defaulting to -mabi=ieeelongdouble
they want to use -mabi=ibmlongdouble -mlong-double-64 (because
-mabi=ibmlongdouble is added into CFLAGS everywhere early, and -ml
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> And in a compiler that defaults to -mlong-double128,
> -mabi=ieeelongdouble
> or
> -mabi=ibmlongdouble
> would be ok, but
> -mlong-double-64 -mabi=ibmlongdouble
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is certainly one option.
Another option would be to move this diagnostics to rs6000_handle_option
and diagnose if -mabi=ieeelongdouble or -mabi=ibmlongdouble is seen while
-mlong-double-64 is in effect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
If you want -mlong-double-64 to override -mabi={ibm,ieee}longdouble, you need
make sure that the last of those options on the command line wins. And what
should -mlong-double-128 do in that scheme?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104208
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer
16 matches
Mail list logo
