On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 01:18, Josh Conner wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Julian Brown wrote:
>
> > Results for arm-none-elf, cross-compiled from i686-pc-linux-gnu
> > (Debian)
> > for C and C++ are here:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01301.html
> >
> > Relative to
Per Bothner writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > However, these fields are real, and they are used, but we shouldn't
> > output any debug info for them.
>
> Does Dwarf support "computed field offsets"? (This might be needed
> for Ada, to.) If so, the Right Thing might be to emit DIEs so gdb
On 19/04/2005, at 6:24 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Geoffrey Keating writes:
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RC2 is available here:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these
bits
on primary and secondary platforms,
Andrew Haley wrote:
However, these fields are real, and they are used, but we shouldn't
output any debug info for them.
Does Dwarf support "computed field offsets"? (This might be needed
for Ada, to.) If so, the Right Thing might be to emit DIEs so gdb
can calculate the field offsets, mimicing th
On Apr 18, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Julian Brown wrote:
Results for arm-none-elf, cross-compiled from i686-pc-linux-gnu
(Debian)
for C and C++ are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01301.html
Relative to RC1, there are several new tests which pass, and:
g++.dg/warn/Wdtor1.C (test fo
Andrew Haley wrote:
At compile time we don't know the field offset of fields that we
inherit, because it can change at runtime. So, we don't set the
FIELD_OFFSET, and that is is why dbxout is aborting.
OK. I certainly can't claim that this aspect of the GCC IR is
particularly well specified. Fo
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Results for hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, no regressions:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01379.html
Thanks; posted on the Wiki.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 07:44:03AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
RC2 is available here:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu results (for RHEL v3) are at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01333.html
The failures are almost all
> I don't recall seeing it, but then I get a lot of mail. Sorry if I lost
> it.
No problem, I only wanted to check.
> But if these failures are important, shouldn't we be recommending the
> second patch to users?
It's 64-bit STABS and nobody uses 64-bit STABS (as generated by GCC).
As an altern
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 09:23:17PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Yes, you sent me a message before when I couldn't build at all, which I
> > applied, but you pointed me to a different patch:
>
> I was talking about a second message.
I don't recall seeing it, but then I get a lot of mail. Sorry
> Yes, you sent me a message before when I couldn't build at all, which I
> applied, but you pointed me to a different patch:
I was talking about a second message.
> If an additional patch is needed, install/specific.html should be updated,
> and perhaps a single patch that does the whole job sho
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 07:44:03AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> RC2 is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu results (for RHEL v3) are at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01333.html
The failures are almost all rel
Results for hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11, no regressions:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01379.html
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla ass
Tom Tromey writes:
> > "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andrew> At compile time we don't know the field offset of fields that we
> Andrew> inherit, because it can change at runtime. So, we don't set the
> Andrew> FIELD_OFFSET, and that is is why dbxout is aborting
> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> At compile time we don't know the field offset of fields that we
Andrew> inherit, because it can change at runtime. So, we don't set the
Andrew> FIELD_OFFSET, and that is is why dbxout is aborting.
Andrew> All I want is for FIELD
Andrew Haley writes:
> Mark Mitchell writes:
> >
> > The C++ front-end (and probably the C front-end) strips
> > zero-width (and possibly unnamed) bitfields after class layout.
> > This can be justified in that those bitfields only affect
> > layout; one doesn't need the middle-end to c
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 04:20:19PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > It appears the bug is because there's a libiconv.so in /usr/local/lib on
> > that machine, with headers in /usr/local/include, but /usr/local/lib isn't
> > in my LD_LIBRARY_PATH. configur
Andrew Haley wrote:
Do you mean running through the struct removing such fields from the
list? OK, I can do that.
Yes.
> So, I would suggest fixing this in the Java front end.
I'll see if I can find the C++ front end code you refer to and use it
as a reference.
Look in class.c for remove_zero_wid
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Joe Buck wrote:
> It appears the bug is because there's a libiconv.so in /usr/local/lib on
> that machine, with headers in /usr/local/include, but /usr/local/lib isn't
> in my LD_LIBRARY_PATH. configure finds the declaration and assumes it
> can call the function. Sorry, I d
The C++ front-end (and probably the C front-end) strips zero-width
(and possibly unnamed) bitfields after class layout. This can be
justified in that those bitfields only affect layout; one doesn't need
the middle-end to copy them around, etc. So, you could probably fix
this i
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 08:12:05AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > For sparc-sun-solaris2.8, I get a failure when building the Java compiler,
> > but I may be doing something wrong, as I usually avoid the Java build
> > on Solaris (since it takes most of a day to build and test).
>
> Known glitch.
Joe Buck wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01307.html
Thanks.
For sparc-sun-solaris2.8, I get a failure when building the Java compiler,
but I may be doing something wrong, as I usually avoid the Java build
on Solaris (since it takes most of a day to build and test).
Thanks.
Mark Mitchell writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Geoffrey Keating writes:
> > > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > RC2 is available here:
> > > >
> > > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
> > > >
> > > > As before, I'd very much appreciate
Eric Botcazou wrote:
SPARC/Solaris is OK:
Thanks; I've added your information to the Wiki.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RC2 is available here:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits
on primary and secondary platforms, post test results with the
contrib/test_summary
Andrew Haley wrote:
Geoffrey Keating writes:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > RC2 is available here:
> >
> > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
> >
> > As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits
> > on primary and secondary
James E Wilson wrote:
commented onMark Mitchell wrote:
The changes that I anticipate between now and the final release are
(a) documentation changes, (b) a patch for 20991, and (c) a possible
patch for 20973. Other than that, I will only consider patches that
fix egregious problems, like a fail to
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Results for mips-elf are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01331.html
and look good. No regressions.
Thanks; added to the Wiki.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
ppc-linux 32-bit.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01370.html
Andreas
Results for i686-pc-cygwin (c, c++, gfortran, objc) are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01363.html
No regressions for c, c++, gfortran relative to RC1.
There are several new tests, which all pass, and one less failed test in
libstdc++:
26_numerics/cmath/c99_classification_m
Geoffrey Keating writes:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > RC2 is available here:
> >
> > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
> >
> > As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits
> > on primary and secondary platforms, post tes
commented onMark Mitchell wrote:
The changes that I anticipate between now and the final release are
(a) documentation changes, (b) a patch for 20991, and (c) a possible
patch for 20973. Other than that, I will only consider patches that
fix egregious problems, like a fail to bootstrap on a primar
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RC2 is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
>
> As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits
> on primary and secondary platforms, post test results with the
> contrib/test_summary script, an
> For sparc-sun-solaris2.8, I get a failure when building the Java compiler,
> but I may be doing something wrong, as I usually avoid the Java build
> on Solaris (since it takes most of a day to build and test).
Known glitch. You have to find out why configure thinks you have libiconv
installed
On Apr 18, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RC2 is available here:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits
on primary and secondary platforms, post test results w
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RC2 is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
>
> As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits
> on primary and secondary platforms, post test results with the
> contrib/test_summary script,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 05:13:33PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> [ solaris failure building Java compiler ]
> It appears the bug is because there's a libiconv.so in /usr/local/lib on
> that machine, with headers in /usr/local/include, but /usr/local/lib isn't
> in my LD_LIBRARY_PATH. configure finds th
> Joe> For sparc-sun-solaris2.8, I get a failure when building the Java
> compiler,
> Joe> but I may be doing something wrong, as I usually avoid the Java build
> Joe> on Solaris (since it takes most of a day to build and test). The message
> Joe> is
>
> Joe> java/parse.o(.text+0x16cc): In func
On 2005-04-18, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> RC2 is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
>
> As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits
> on primary and secondary platforms, post test results with the
> contrib/test_su
c,ada are clean on x86 and x86_64 linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01311.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01313.html
Laurent
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 07:44:03AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> RC2 is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
>
> As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits
> on primary and secondary platforms, post test results with the
> contr
RC2 is available here:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/
As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits
on primary and secondary platforms, post test results with the
contrib/test_summary script, and send me a message saying whether or
not there are a
42 matches
Mail list logo
