Bug#93929: chill has description of objective-c
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 06:26:42AM +0200, Jïrgen A. Erhard wrote: > BTW, there's no chill-3.0 package... is this an oversight or is chill no > longer a part of the GCC? GCC switched over from obstacks to its own garbage collection scheme, and no one was interested enough to change the chill frontend to no longer use obstacks. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
Re: Bug#93929: chill has description of objective-c
> BTW, there's no chill-3.0 package... is this an oversight or is chill no > longer a part of the GCC? Unless somebody comes forward with patches, the chill compiler won't work in gcc 3. It is still included in the sources, but cannot be built. Regards, Martin
Bug#93278: marked as done (gcc-2.95: gcc segfaults on kernel 2.4.3)
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:52:51 +0200 (MEST) with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line fixed with gcc-2.95-2.95.4-0.010407 has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Apr 2001 10:14:54 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Apr 08 05:14:54 2001 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from eriador.apana.org.au [203.14.152.116] (mail) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 14mCDc-0006VB-00; Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:14:53 -0500 Received: from gondolin.me.apana.org.au ([192.168.0.6] ident=mail) by eriador.apana.org.au with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14mCDX-bk-00 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:14:47 +1000 Received: from herbert by gondolin.me.apana.org.au with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14mCDU-0002Ow-00 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:14:44 +1000 From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: gcc-2.95: gcc segfaults on kernel 2.4.3 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: bug 3.3.9 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:14:44 +1000 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: gcc-2.95 Version: 1:2.95.3-10 Severity: serious $ /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.3/cc1 -quiet -dumpbase reg_ld_str.c -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i386 -O2 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -version -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strict-aliasing -o reg_ld_str.o reg_ld_str.i GNU C version 2.95.3 20010315 (Debian release) (i386-linux) compiled by GNU C version 2.95.3 20010315 (Debian release). reg_ld_str.c: In function `FPU_store_single': reg_ld_str.c:635: warning: `templ' might be used uninitialized in this function Segmentation fault (core dumped) $ reg_ld_str.i can be obtained from http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/bugs/reg_ld_str.i.bz2 gcc-3.0 compiles it successfully. The segfault goes away if the file is passed through the preprocessor again. -- System Information Debian Release: testing/unstable Kernel Version: Linux gondolin 2.4.2-pentiumiii-smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 13 07:54:37 EST 2001 i686 unknown Versions of the packages gcc-2.95 depends on: ii binutils 2.11.90.0.1-1 The GNU assembler, linker and binary utiliti ii cpp-2.95 2.95.3-6 The GNU C preprocessor. ii gcc2.95.3-5 The GNU C compiler. ii libc6 2.2.2-4GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone --- Received: (at 93278-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Apr 2001 19:58:00 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 14 14:58:00 2001 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 14oWBD-0002qd-00; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:57:59 -0500 Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12300 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:53:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA21777; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:52:51 +0200 (MEST) From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:52:51 +0200 (MEST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: fixed with gcc-2.95-2.95.4-0.010407 X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fixed with gcc-2.95-2.95.4-0.010407
Bug#93786: marked as done (arm-loop.dpatch)
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:57:29 +0200 (MEST) with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#93786: arm-loop.dpatch has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Apr 2001 19:59:45 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 12 14:59:45 2001 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from pc57-cam4.cable.ntl.com (kings-cross.london.uk.eu.org) [62.253.135.57] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 14nnFp-0003Dr-00; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:59:45 -0500 Received: from localhost ([:::127.0.0.1] helo=kings-cross.london.uk.eu.org ident=pb) by kings-cross.london.uk.eu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14nnFm-0008Uq-00 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:59:42 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 (debian 2.3.1-1) with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: arm-loop.dpatch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:59:42 +0100 From: Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: gcc-2.95 Version: 1:2.95.3-11 This patch fixes a problem compiling binutils on ARM. It's already installed on the 2.95 branch in CVS, but if future packages are going to use the 2.95.3 tarball it would be good to have this included. #! /bin/sh -e # DP: Fix for SUBREG problems src=gcc if [ $# -eq 3 -a "$2" = '-d' ]; then pdir="-d $3" src=$3/gcc elif [ $# -ne 1 ]; then echo >&2 "`basename $0`: script expects -patch|-unpatch as argument" exit 1 fi case "$1" in -patch) patch $pdir -f --no-backup-if-mismatch -p1 --fuzz 10 < $0 cd $src && autoconf ;; -unpatch) patch $pdir -f --no-backup-if-mismatch -R -p1 --fuzz 10 < $0 cd $src && autoconf ;; *) echo >&2 "`basename $0`: script expects -patch|-unpatch as argument" exit 1 esac exit 0 2001-04-03 Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * loop.c (combine_movables): Restrict combinations of constants with different modes so that we don't introduce SUBREGs into memory addresses. --- src/gcc/loop.c 2001/01/25 14:03:18 1.156.4.20 +++ src/gcc/loop.c 2001/04/03 12:09:42 1.156.4.21 @@ -1481,10 +1481,16 @@ combine_movables (movables, nregs) width as M1. The check for integer is redundant, but safe, since the only case of differing destination modes with equal sources is when both sources are - VOIDmode, i.e., CONST_INT. */ + VOIDmode, i.e., CONST_INT. + + For 2.95, don't do this if the mode of M1 is Pmode. + This prevents us from substituting SUBREGs for REGs + in memory accesses; not all targets are prepared to + handle this properly. */ (GET_MODE (m->set_dest) == GET_MODE (m1->set_dest) || (GET_MODE_CLASS (GET_MODE (m->set_dest)) == MODE_INT && GET_MODE_CLASS (GET_MODE (m1->set_dest)) == MODE_INT + && GET_MODE (m1->set_dest) != Pmode && (GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE (m->set_dest)) >= GET_MODE_BITSIZE (GET_MODE (m1->set_dest) /* See if the source of M1 says it matches M. */ --- Received: (at 93786-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Apr 2001 20:03:19 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Apr 14 15:03:19 2001 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 14oWGM-0003Zc-00; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 15:03:18 -0500 Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA12580; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:57:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id VAA21814; Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:57:29 +0200 (MEST) From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:57:29 +0200 (MEST) To: Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#93786: arm-loop.dpatch In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Bug#91823: marked as done (binutils will not build on arm)
Your message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:14:54 +0200 (MEST) with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line fixed with has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 26 Mar 2001 21:55:52 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 26 15:55:51 2001 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from dillweed.dsl.xmission.com (winder.codepoet.org) [166.70.14.212] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 14hexr-0002jg-00; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:55:51 -0600 Received: by winder.codepoet.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B5B65237227; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:55:50 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:55:50 -0700 From: Erik Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: binutils will not build on arm Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.2.17, Rebel-NetWinder(Intel sa110 rev 3), 262.14 BogoMips X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail. Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: binutils Version: 2.11.90.0.1-1 Severity: normal binutils doesn't compile on arm it seems... [EMAIL PROTECTED] binutils-2.10.91.0.2]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo Processor : Intel StrongARM-110 rev 3 (v4l) BogoMIPS: 262.14 Hardware: Rebel-NetWinder Revision: 44ff Serial : 0639 [EMAIL PROTECTED] bfd]$ gcc -v Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/arm-linux/2.95.3/specs gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (Debian release) [EMAIL PROTECTED] bfd]$ ld -v GNU ld version 2.10.91 (with BFD 2.10.91.0.2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] binutils-2.10.91.0.2]$ uname -a Linux winder 2.2.17 #15 Fri Mar 16 22:51:41 MST 2001 armv4l unknown Here is what I see: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I../../bfd -I../../bfd/../include -I../../bfd/../intl -I../intl -W -Wall -O2 -c ../../bfd/efi-app-ia64.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/efi-app-ia64.o gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I../../bfd -I../../bfd/../include -I../../bfd/../intl -I../intl -W -Wall -O2 -c ../../bfd/efi-app-ia64.c -o efi-app-ia64.o >/dev/null 2>&1 rm -f pepigen.c sed -e s/XX/pep/g < ../../bfd/peXXigen.c > pepigen.new mv -f pepigen.new pepigen.c /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE-I. -I../../bfd -I../../bfd/../include -I../../bfd/../intl -I../intl -W -Wall -O2 -c pepigen.c gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I../../bfd -I../../bfd/../include -I../../bfd/../intl -I../intl -W -Wall -O2 -c pepigen.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/pepigen.o gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I../../bfd -I../../bfd/../include -I../../bfd/../intl -I../intl -W -Wall -O2 -c pepigen.c -o pepigen.o >/dev/null 2>&1 make[4]: *** [pepigen.lo] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory `/tmp/foo/binutils-2.11.90.0.1/builddir-multi/bfd' make[3]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/foo/binutils-2.11.90.0.1/builddir-multi/bfd' make[2]: *** [all-recursive-am] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/foo/binutils-2.11.90.0.1/builddir-multi/bfd' make[1]: *** [all-bfd] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/foo/binutils-2.11.90.0.1/builddir-multi' make: *** [build-multi-stamp] Error 2 Checking a bit more closely, this is what I see: [EMAIL PROTECTED] binutils-2.11.90.0.1]$ cd /tmp/foo/binutils-2.11.90.0.1/builddir-multi/bfd [EMAIL PROTECTED] bfd]$ gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I../../bfd -I../../bfd/../include -I../../bfd/../intl -I../intl -W -Wall -O2 -c pepigen.c -o pepigen.o pepigen.c: In function `pe_print_pdata': pepigen.c:1687: internal error--unrecognizable insn: (insn 564 558 566 (set (reg:SI 176) (mem/s:SI (plus:SI (reg/v:SI 36) (subreg:SI (reg:DI 132) 0)) 0)) -1 (nil) (nil)) I get exactly the same problem with binutils-2.10.91.0.2-4 gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -I../../bfd -I../../bfd/../include -I../../bfd/../intl -I../intl -W -Wall -O2 -c elf64-ia64.c -o elf64-ia64.o >/dev/null 2>&1 /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOURCE-I. -I../../bfd -I../../bfd/../include -I../../bfd/../intl -I../intl -W -Wall -O2 -c ../../bfd/efi-app-ia64.c gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../bfd -I. -D_GNU_SOU
