On 06/06/2013 09:50 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> * varasm.c (get_section): Don't die on !DECL_P decl. Tidy error
> reporting.
> (get_named_section): Don't NULL !DECL_P decl.
Ok.
r~
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:05:13PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> suspicious. For instance, you might wonder why it is correct to have
> if (decl && !DECL_P (decl))
> decl = NULL_TREE;
> before calling get_section(). The answer is that get_section() is not
> prepared to handle !DECL_P trees whe
On 05/10/2013 03:55 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:47:19AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 02/22/2013 02:51 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
Richard, can I bother you with a review request?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00544.html
Sorry for the truly excessive delay h
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:47:19AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 02:51 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > Richard, can I bother you with a review request?
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00544.html
>
> Sorry for the truly excessive delay here.
>
> This patch is ok for ma
On 02/22/2013 02:51 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> Richard, can I bother you with a review request?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00544.html
Sorry for the truly excessive delay here.
This patch is ok for mainline and 4.8.1.
r~
Sebastian,
Alan's patch is related to some original work by Richard Henderson and
Richard has told both Alan and I that he eventually will review the
patch. If someone else wants to review the patch before he gets to
it, that would be great as well.
Thanks, David
> would one of the global revie
Hello,
would one of the global reviewers mind having a look at this?
The comment #2 of PR55033 clearly shows that this is a compiler bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55033#c2
Alan Modra proposed a patch to fix this problem only one day after the bug
report. This was in Octobe
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 06:29:36PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> How can we make progress to get this patch committed on trunk, 4.8 and 4.7?
I have OKs for the config/i386/winnt.c and config/rs6000/rs6000.c
parts. I just need someone who is authorized to review patches to
varasm.c, and is willin
Alan,
How can we make progress to get this patch committed on trunk, 4.8 and 4.7?
Thanks, David
Hello,
since GCC 4.8.0 is now released it would be very kind if someone can decide if
this fix for PR55033 can be integrated in the 4.8 branch and/or trunk.
For 32-bit Book E PowerPC targets this bug is a show stopper from my point of
view. Even though this is only tertiary GCC platform with
Hello,
so now we have the approval of the Windows specific part. David Edelsohn said
that the rs6000 specific part is all right:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-02/msg00186.html
This patch is available for review since October 2012.
What is missing to get this finally committed to GCC 4.8?
On 12/02/2013 16:11, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> This patch from Alan Modra fixes a section type conflict error. See also
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02172.html
The Windows part is OK. I ran the g++ testsuite (gcc/, not libstdc) with no
change before and after.
cheers,
This patch from Alan Modra fixes a section type conflict error. See also
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02172.html
Test results on PowerPC without this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-02/msg01351.html
Test results on PowerPC with this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/
Test results with this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-02/msg01351.html
2013-02-12 Sebastian Huber
PR target/55033
* gcc.target/powerpc/pr55033.c: New.
---
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/pr55033.c | 21 +
1 files changed, 21 insertion
14 matches
Mail list logo
