https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Bernd Edlinger :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6ebf79fcd4cfb43353e6a000f700b07295e78026
commit r11-6588-g6ebf79fcd4cfb43353e6a000f700b07295e78026
Author: Bernd Edlinger
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #18 from David Edelsohn ---
PASS: outputs exe savetmp namedb: outputs-outputs-0.i
PASS: outputs exe savetmp namedb: outputs-outputs-0.s
PASS: outputs exe savetmp namedb: outputs-outputs-0.o
PASS: outputs exe savetmp namedb: outputs.ar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #15)
> I'm seeing a number of new testsuite failures on AIX after the
> collect2/testsuite change. Do you want a separate PR or use this as well?
>
> They are:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
Stat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> could someone try this for me?
This worked fine for me, both with -j2 and without. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
could someone try this for me?
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests
index 80d4b61..7cd755c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp
+++ b/gcc/te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Aah, now I see (lto-wrapper.c):
if (parallel)
{
fprintf (mstream, "%s:\n\t@%s ", output_name, new_argv[0]);
for (j = 1; new_argv[j] != NULL; ++j)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> I tried to bootstrap with
> GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.24
>
> but still cannot reproduce the reported
> failure ltrans0.ltrans_args /
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I tried to bootstrap with
GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.24
but still cannot reproduce the reported
failure ltrans0.ltrans_args / ltrans0.ltrans_args.0
I really wonder what makes the difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> The arguments are in a response-file: @outputs.ld1_args
>> maybe that looks different for you?
>
> It ce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> when you leave just one of those tests, you can
> get somewhat more verbose output by using something like that:
>
> make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
when you leave just one of those tests, you can
get somewhat more verbose output by using something like that:
make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-v/-Wl,-v outputs.exp"
you should see wher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> It is interesting that some tests are reported failing
> on the x86_64-pc-linux-gnu platform that I also use.
Right: it's not the platform per
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> * Despite -save-temps, the lto-wrapper input objects are removed at the end,
> so I cannot manually rerun lto-wrapper to investigate.
You could modify
gcc/test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
It is interesting that some tests are reported failing
on the x86_64-pc-linux-gnu platform that I also use.
I really wonder what prevents these failures for me.
Could you say if there the outputs.exp test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> Unfortunately I cannot reproduce.
>
> I configured like this:
> ../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/home/ed/gnu/install --enable-languages=all
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Unfortunately I cannot reproduce.
I configured like this:
../gcc-trunk/configure --prefix=/home/ed/gnu/install --enable-languages=all
and use
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.35.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
21 matches
Mail list logo
