[Bug ada/10110] [3.3/3.4 regression] [mipsel-linux]ada bootstrap error

[zack at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10110


zack at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|target  |ada


--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-10-21 18:33 
---
There is nothing wrong with the MIPS back end, except perhaps that the generic
back end interface does not expose the information you need in a convenient
form.  All tm.h macros (except those explicitly documented to be usable in
libgcc) may introduce dependencies on libbackend.a.  Recategorizing as Ada bug.

Now, linking gnatpsta with libbackend.a will cause you even more trouble.  I
would suggest that you consider folding gnatpsta and gnatpsys into gnat1.  This
is the only way to get all of the values in these packages correct -- some of
them can vary with -m switches (which is why the associated macros introduce
dependencies on libbackend.a).



--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug ada/10110] [3.3/3.4 regression] [mipsel-linux]ada bootstrap error

[zack at gcc dot gnu dot org]

PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10110


zack at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |charlet at gcc dot gnu dot
   |dot org |org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED





--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug optimization/11634] [3.3/3.4 regression] [hppa] ICE in verify_local_live_at_start, at flow.c:555

[zack at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-12-02 00:26 
---
Roger: I think you're right that split_all_insns_noflow will eventually
disappear, and so I will approve your patch for mainline.  Ask Gabriel about 
3.3.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11634

--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.

[Bug target/11793] [3.3.1 regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2175 (const_vector's)

[zack at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org  2003-12-02 00:40 
---
Aldy, please submit a patch for 3.3.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11793

--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.

[Bug target/11793] [3.3.1 regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2175 (const_vector's)

[zack at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords|patch   |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11793

--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.

[Bug target/13722] [3.4/3.5 regression] [ia64] ICE in push_secondary_reload

[zack at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-01-22 20:14 
---
Several messages regarding this bug were sent to PR 13772 by mistake.

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2004-01-21 14:13:11 |2004-01-22 20:14:54
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13722

--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug target/13722] [3.4/3.5 regression] [ia64] ICE in push_secondary_reload

[zack at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-01-28 21:39 
---
believed fixed, mainline and branch.

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13722

--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

[Bug libstdc++/14493] No std::bad_alloc::what() const

[zack at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Additional Comments From zack at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-03-09 04:45 
---
It appears to me that the original reporter wanted what() to return
an "intelligible error message" a la icc's "bad allocation", rather
than "St9bad_alloc"  (which does communicate the same information but
in a more cryptic fashion).

I do think there should be a place in the standard library for nice 
friendly names for exceptions (think strerror()), but I don't know 
if what() is that place.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14493

--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.