[Bug c++/40333] g++ does not align static variables properly

[rogerdpack at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #2 from rogerdpack at gmail dot com  2009-08-24 04:38 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The following SSE2 code crashes because the non-static global variable breaks
> the alignment of the static data section.

Is this fixed if you use 4.5.0?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40333

[Bug bootstrap/55706] [4.8 Regression] failue to build libstdc++ in stage 1

[rogerdpack at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55706

roger pack  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rogerdpack at gmail dot com

--- Comment #4 from roger pack  ---
(as a note, appears mingw-w64 2.0.8 is not sufficient you need something
newer...)

[Bug bootstrap/55706] [4.8 Regression] failure to build libstdc++ in stage 1

[rogerdpack at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55706

--- Comment #6 from roger pack  ---
Yeah I was getting the same error message with 2.0.8 and pinged them about it. 
Apparently the crt they bundled with 2.0.8 wasn't new enough or something like
that, and they plan on releasing a new release soon...from what I could glean
that is.

[Bug libstdc++/16371] libstdc++ fails for crosses

[rogerdpack at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16371

roger pack  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rogerdpack at gmail dot com

--- Comment #27 from roger pack  ---
(sorry to comment on something so ancient).  Anyway ran into something similar
today, a couple of hints/clues: mine was caused by having an empty environment
variable CFLAGS (like bash's export CFLAGS=).  So unsetting that and I was good
to go.
Also (as others have noted) this error message basically means "your cross
compiler is unable to link at all" or something like that (the config.log that
may describe it is called something like
i686-w64-mingw32/libstdc++-v3/config.log)

[Bug c/52991] attribute packed broken on mingw32?

[rogerdpack at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52991

roger pack  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rogerdpack at gmail dot com

--- Comment #15 from roger pack  ---
So is the problem here that -mms-bitfields became the default, which caused
difficulties, or that -mms-bitfields is broken? (if the latter, does using
gcc_struct everywhere cause the right behavior?)  Sorry I'm a bit clueless
here.  Thanks!

[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}

[rogerdpack at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119

roger pack  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rogerdpack at gmail dot com

--- Comment #19 from roger pack  ---
Has this been applied yet? (If yes, in which version of gcc?) Seems to be a
popular problem, if it's this: 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13746033/how-to-repair-warning-missing-braces-around-initializer