On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> Doesn't that mean that a non-GCC host compiler might fail to build
> 4.8 during stage1?
Yes. Fixed last week. vec<> needed to become a pure POD. So sad.
Diego.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> I have now committed all 25 parts of this patch as rev 193595. Please
>>> CC me on any problems that you think may be related to
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > I have tested the patch pretty extensively:
> >
> > - Regular bootstraps on x86_64, ppc, ia64, sparc and hppa.
> > - Bootstraps with --enable-checking=release
> > - Bootstraps with --enable-checking=gc,gcac
> > - B
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:57:08PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:15:22AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Diego Novil
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:15:22AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >>> I have now committed all 25 parts of this patch as rev 1
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:14 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> The problem is AIX stdlib.h defines
>>
>> #define vec_free free
>
> Ouch.
>
>> I am not sure where
>>
>> #undef vec_free
>>
>> should be placed. In vec.h or system.h?
>
> I th
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:14 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> The problem is AIX stdlib.h defines
>
> #define vec_free free
Ouch.
> I am not sure where
>
> #undef vec_free
>
> should be placed. In vec.h or system.h?
I think system.h.
Ian
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> And now bootstrap fails on AIX using GCC 4.6.3 with the error:
>>
>> /nasfarm/dje/src/src/gcc/c-family/c-lex.c: In function 'c_fileinfo*
>> get_fileinfo(const char*)':
>> /nasfarm/dje/src/src/gcc/c-family/c-lex.c:107:39: error: overloaded
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:28 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Files were changed in gcc/c-family with no associated ChangeLog entry.
*gasp*
I mistakenly put them in c/ChangeLog. Not that they carry any useful
information, but I'll move them.
> And now bootstrap fails on AIX using GCC 4.6.3 with th
Files were changed in gcc/c-family with no associated ChangeLog entry.
And now bootstrap fails on AIX using GCC 4.6.3 with the error:
/nasfarm/dje/src/src/gcc/c-family/c-lex.c: In function 'c_fileinfo*
get_fileinfo(const char*)':
/nasfarm/dje/src/src/gcc/c-family/c-lex.c:107:39: error: overloaded
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> On 18.11.12 20:11, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> >> Is there a minimum gcc to bootstrap current trunk?
> >> I currently fail to bootstrap trunk with a 4.2.1 gcc, but a 4.6
> >> succeeds.
> >
> > A gcc-4.1.2 h
On 18.11.12 20:11, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>> Is there a minimum gcc to bootstrap current trunk?
>> I currently fail to bootstrap trunk with a 4.2.1 gcc, but a 4.6
>> succeeds.
>
> A gcc-4.1.2 has worked for me in the past, before this recent
> vec.h
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> I have now committed all 25 parts of this patch as rev 193595. Please
>>> CC me on any problems that you think may be related to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Is there a minimum gcc to bootstrap current trunk?
> I currently fail to bootstrap trunk with a 4.2.1 gcc, but a 4.6
> succeeds.
A gcc-4.1.2 has worked for me in the past, before this recent
vec.h change. I think that's the minimum version reportedly
w
On 18.11.12 18:05, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> I have now committed all 25 parts of this patch as rev 193595. Please
>> CC me on any problems that you think may be related to this rewrite.
>
> That seems to have trigged some bug in gcc-4.4-era. See
>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> My cris-elf builds worked fine, but config-list.mk only builds stage
>> 1, it does not build libgfortran. Can you give me instructions on how
>> to build your target on my x86 workstation?
>
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> My cris-elf builds worked fine, but config-list.mk only builds stage
> 1, it does not build libgfortran. Can you give me instructions on how
> to build your target on my x86 workstation?
Better see the PR for cc1 command-line and preprocessed C-file.
b
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> I have now committed all 25 parts of this patch as rev 193595. Please
>> CC me on any problems that you think may be related to this rewrite.
>
> That seems to have trigged some bug in gcc-4
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I have now committed all 25 parts of this patch as rev 193595. Please
> CC me on any problems that you think may be related to this rewrite.
That seems to have trigged some bug in gcc-4.4-era. See
PR55381. There are a lot of suspicious warnings from v
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I have tested the patch pretty extensively:
>
> - Regular bootstraps on x86_64, ppc, ia64, sparc and hppa.
> - Bootstraps with --enable-checking=release
> - Bootstraps with --enable-checking=gc,gcac
> - Basic builds on all targets (using con
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> 2012-11-15 Diego Novillo
>
> * vec.c (register_overhead): Convert it into
> member function of vec_prefix.
> (release_overhead): Likewise.
> (calculate_allocation): Likewise.
> (vec_heap_free): Rem
On 16-11-2012 12:13, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>> Was this considered?
>
> Yup. I just did not implement it. Would be a good follow up, though.
Ah, good to know. Thanks.
For the archives, cause gcc-patches@ bounced my mail for not being sub
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Was this considered?
Yup. I just did not implement it. Would be a good follow up, though.
Diego.
23 matches
Mail list logo