On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Now, up to some gcc version there has been a -finit-priority option, which
was also used in eCos. As this option disappeared, having become silent
default, it worked also without it... with 3.4.4 no longer. Binutils version
used with 3.4.4 is 2.
Ok - it built this time. I guess I should read the instructions - my
fault...
Thanks for the help!
Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Botcazou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Cuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:52 AM
Su
> I thought it was OK to use a relative path. From what I understood, it is
> a bad idea to build inside the directory that the gcc tar file is
> uncompressed into, but I guess I can specifiy the path in full.
Yes, and while you are at it, use the recommended config shell.
--
Eric Botcazou
Cuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: gcc 3.4.4 build fails on Solaris (SPARC): Unable to run C
Compiled Programs
I'm trying to build gcc 3.4.4 on a sparc machine running Solaris 9. My
build setup was:
../gcc-3.4.4/configure --diabled-shar
> I'm trying to build gcc 3.4.4 on a sparc machine running Solaris 9. My
> build setup was:
> ../gcc-3.4.4/configure --diabled-shared --prefix= dir> --enable-languages=c,c++
> make bootstrap
I see 4 potential problems:
- do not use a relative path to configure,
- "--diabled-shared" is probably no
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 08:25:16PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 12:00:17PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 10:15:12AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > > And, I would like to ask that our webmasters, in there copious spare
> > > time :-), work on auto
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 12:00:17PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 10:15:12AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > And, I would like to ask that our webmasters, in there copious spare
> > time :-), work on automatically generating more of this content. The
> > bug lists and such cou
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 10:15:12AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> And, I would like to ask that our webmasters, in there copious spare
> time :-), work on automatically generating more of this content. The
> bug lists and such could be automatically generated, even if some
> subsequent refinemen
Joe Buck wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 05:48:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
Original Message
From: Mark Mitchell
Sent: 20 May 2005 17:24
GCC 3.4.4 has been released.
This release is a minor release, containing fixes for regressions in
GCC 3.4.3 relative to previous versions of GCC. A more
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 05:48:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Original Message
> >From: Mark Mitchell
> >Sent: 20 May 2005 17:24
>
> > GCC 3.4.4 has been released.
> >
> > This release is a minor release, containing fixes for regressions in
> > GCC 3.4.3 relative to previous versions of GC
Original Message
>From: Mark Mitchell
>Sent: 20 May 2005 17:24
> GCC 3.4.4 has been released.
>
> This release is a minor release, containing fixes for regressions in
> GCC 3.4.3 relative to previous versions of GCC. A more complete list
> of changes is at:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.
On 2005-05-16, at 22:03, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Georg Bauhaus wrote:
On Mac OX X 10.2, the results are slightly discomforting,
even though I do get a compiler with
--enable-languages=c,ada,f77,c++,objc.
gcc summary has
# of unexpected failures1080
First, I would suggest disabling Ada, in ord
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 02:11:24PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:41:03PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've very nearly ready to release GCC 3.4.4. If you have objections or
> >>high-priority fixes that you think will be required for
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:41:03PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I've very nearly ready to release GCC 3.4.4. If you have objections or
high-priority fixes that you think will be required for this release,
please speak up within the next 24 hours.
Sorry for the last minute
John David Anglin wrote:
Please download, build, and test.
I've now completed testing on the PA and don't see any major issues.
The only easily fixable issue that showed up in testing was the failure
of 26_numerics/complex/pow.cc under hpux 10.20. This fails because of
a corner case in the 10.20
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:41:03PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I've very nearly ready to release GCC 3.4.4. If you have objections or
> high-priority fixes that you think will be required for this release,
> please speak up within the next 24 hours.
Sorry for the last minute mail ...
It occ
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On May 16, 2005, Georg Bauhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- cd ada/doctools && gnatmake -q xgnatugn
+ cd ada/doctools && gnatmake -q --GCC=$(CC) xgnatugn -largs --GCC=$(CC)
Don't you need quotes around $(CC),
Yes, there should be quotes.
(Without them the change
On May 16, 2005, Georg Bauhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - cd ada/doctools && gnatmake -q xgnatugn
> + cd ada/doctools && gnatmake -q --GCC=$(CC) xgnatugn -largs --GCC=$(CC)
Don't you need quotes around $(CC), for the general case in which it's
not as simple as `gcc', but rather someth
> Please download, build, and test.
I've now completed testing on the PA and don't see any major issues.
The only easily fixable issue that showed up in testing was the failure
of 26_numerics/complex/pow.cc under hpux 10.20. This fails because of
a corner case in the 10.20 math library. The pro
Georg Bauhaus wrote:
On Mac OX X 10.2, the results are slightly discomforting,
even though I do get a compiler with
--enable-languages=c,ada,f77,c++,objc.
gcc summary has
# of unexpected failures1080
First, I would suggest disabling Ada, in order to get further.
As for the GCC failures, 108
Mark Mitchell wrote:
GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here:
Please download, build, and test.
On Mac OX X 10.2, the results are slightly discomforting,
even though I do get a compiler with
--enable-languages=c,ada,f77,c++,objc.
gcc summary has
# of unexpected failures1080
(Couldn't get any
Janis Johnson wrote:
I hadn't noticed originally but on powerpc64-linux with 3.4.4 RC2 and
with the 3.4 branch, the results for libstdc++-v3 show only one run of
the tests for "unix", not two for "unix/-m32" and "unix/-m64", and the
results are actually for check-abi. The leftover temp files in th
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 08:59:48AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> >It also looks like this patch has been backported to 3.4 branch but not to
> >4.0 branch? Because 4.0 branch builds are still creating
> >libstdc++-abi.sum, while 3.4 branch builds no longer do, the ABI
Etienne Lorrain wrote:
GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050512
There are just a few changes from RC1 to fix critical problems people
experienced with RC1.
Work for me, thanks.
Good; thanks for confirming.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL P
> GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here:
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050512
> There are just a few changes from RC1 to fix critical problems people
experienced with RC1.
Work for me, thanks.
Etienne.
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Greg Schafer wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:44:59PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050512
There are just a few changes from RC1 to fix critical problems people
experienced with RC1.
Please dow
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
While I really do appreciate your help, such changes need my approval.
We are in a freeze situation, which means I might be spinning a release
at any moment. Please consult with me in future in such situations.
I apologize for the
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I really do appreciate your help, such changes need my approval.
> We are in a freeze situation, which means I might be spinning a release
> at any moment. Please consult with me in future in such situations.
I apologize for the unapproved chec
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
It also looks like this patch has been backported to 3.4 branch but not to
4.0 branch? Because 4.0 branch builds are still creating
libstdc++-abi.sum, while 3.4 branch builds no longer do, the ABI tests
having been subsumed in the main libstdc++.sum for mainline and 3.4
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Ulrich Weigand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It would appear the problem is this patch:
2005-05-12 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2005-04-04 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* testsuite/Makefile.am (check-local): Remove.
The problem is that this change is
On Sun, 15 May 2005, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> It would appear the problem is this patch:
> 2005-05-12 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 2005-04-04 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * testsuite/Makefile.am (check-local): Remove.
> (curent_symbols.txt): Likewise.
>
Ulrich Weigand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would appear the problem is this patch:
> 2005-05-12 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 2005-04-04 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * testsuite/Makefile.am (check-local): Remove.
The problem is that this change is missing.
On May 14, 2005, at 8:06 PM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
Ok for Ada on x86-linux:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-05/msg00922.html
C still has one unexpected fail:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/va-arg-25.c execution, -Os
That is not unexcited and was fixed only for 4.0.0, there was a PR
about i
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:54:03AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> It would appear the problem is this patch:
> 2005-05-12 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 2005-04-04 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * testsuite/Makefile.am (check-local): Remove.
> (curent_symbo
Ok for Ada on x86-linux:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-05/msg00922.html
C still has one unexpected fail:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/va-arg-25.c execution, -Os
Laurent
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 15:44 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu
Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:44:59PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> > GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here:
> >
> > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050512
> >
> > There are just a few changes from RC1 to fix critical problems people
> > experienced with RC1.
> >
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:44:59PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050512
>
> There are just a few changes from RC1 to fix critical problems people
> experienced with RC1.
>
> Please download, build, and test.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Mitchell wrote:
| GCC 3.4.4 RC1 is available here:
|
| ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050510/
|
| As usual, please test -- by using exactly those tarballs, so that we can
| detect packging errors. Put problems into Bugzilla, and Cc:
> Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If I compile that with GCC-3.4, I get:
>>
>> $ size tmp.o
>> textdata bss dec hex filename
>> 243 0 0 243 f3 tmp.o
>>
>> With GCC-4.0:
>>
>> $ size tmp.o
>> textdata bss dec hex filename
>>
> Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If I compile that with GCC-3.4, I get:
>>
>> $ size tmp.o
>> textdata bss dec hex filename
>> 243 0 0 243 f3 tmp.o
>>
>> With GCC-4.0:
>>
>> $ size tmp.o
>> textdata bss dec hex filename
>>
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some of those problem may also exist in GCC-4.0 because this
version (and the 4.1 I tested) gives me an increase of 60% of the
code size compared to 3.4.3.
This is a serious regression which should be submitted in Bugzilla. Would
you
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 23:35 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 3.4.4 RC1 is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050510/
>
> As usual, please test -- by using exactly those tarballs, so that we can
> detect packging errors. Put problems into Bugzilla, and Cc: me. At
> size -f tmp.o
>textdata bss dec hex filename
> 322 0 0 322 142 tst.o
>
> Looking at the debugging dump shows that the there's a lot of
> variables generate by SRA, indeed after adding
>
> -fno-tree-sra
>
> textdata bss dec hex fi
"Etienne Lorrain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Some of those problem may also exist in GCC-4.0 because this
> >> version (and the 4.1 I tested) gives me an increase of 60% of the
> >> code size compared to 3.4.3.
> >
> >
>
Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I compile that with GCC-3.4, I get:
>
> $ size tmp.o
> textdata bss dec hex filename
> 243 0 0 243 f3 tmp.o
>
> With GCC-4.0:
>
> $ size tmp.o
> textdata bss dec hex filename
> 387 0
> Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Some of those problem may also exist in GCC-4.0 because this
>> version (and the 4.1 I tested) gives me an increase of 60% of the
>> code size compared to 3.4.3.
>
>
> This is a serious regression which should be submitted in Bugzilla. Would
> y
Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some of those problem may also exist in GCC-4.0 because this
> version (and the 4.1 I tested) gives me an increase of 60% of the
> code size compared to 3.4.3.
This is a serious regression which should be submitted in Bugzilla. Would
you please ta
> GCC 3.4.4 RC1 is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050510/
I downloaded and rebuild for ia32 with latest pre binutils on
my project and noticed an increase of size. I am compiling with -Os
because size is very important in my case - so I invertigated by
lookin
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 3.4.4 RC1 is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050510/
>
> As usual, please test -- by using exactly those tarballs, so that we can
> detect packging errors. Put problems into Bugzilla, and Cc: me. At
> this point, the only problems th
> From: Mark Mitchell
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 12:00 PM
>
> Now that GCC 4.0 is out the door, I've spent some time looking at the
> status of the 3.4 branch. As stated previously, I'll be doing a 3.4.4
> release, and then turning the branch over to Gaby, to focus
> exclusively on 4.0/4.1.
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Richard Guenther wrote:
| > On 4/29/05, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >
| >>Joseph S. Myers wrote:
| >>
| >>>What's the position on closing 3.4 regression bugs which are fixed in 4.0
| >>>and where it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt to ba
Richard Guenther wrote:
On 4/29/05, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
What's the position on closing 3.4 regression bugs which are fixed in 4.0
and where it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt to backport a fix?
They should be closed as FIXED, with a note. It would be
On 4/29/05, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > What's the position on closing 3.4 regression bugs which are fixed in 4.0
> > and where it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt to backport a fix?
>
> They should be closed as FIXED, with a note. It would be wrong to
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Now that GCC 4.0 is out the door, I've spent some time looking at the
| status of the 3.4 branch. As stated previously, I'll be doing a 3.4.4
| release, and then turning the branch over to Gaby, to focus
| exclusively on 4.0/4.1.
I'm happy to help the
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Mark Mitchell dixit:
In general, GCC 3.4.3 is working for people
Does anyone have an idea where to look?
This is a bug in your config, you forgot to define NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C.
-- Pinski
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
What's the position on closing 3.4 regression bugs which are fixed in 4.0
and where it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt to backport a fix?
They should be closed as FIXED, with a note. It would be wrong to use
WONTFIX, since the bug is in fact FIXED in 4.0; it might make
What's the position on closing 3.4 regression bugs which are fixed in 4.0
and where it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt to backport a fix? I'm
thinking in particular of issues relating to c-decl.c (1, 18799,
18935, 19694) since c-decl.c in 3.4 was part way through a rewrite and
that inte
Mark Mitchell dixit:
>In general, GCC 3.4.3 is working for people
I've been playing around a lot with the various 3.4.4 snapshots
lately, and got everything to work, except for libjava:
gmake[1]: Entering directory `/usr/obj/gcc/libjava'
/bin/ksh ./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile c++ -DHAVE_CON
Denis Zaitsev wrote:
a) Formally, the code is correct. As p->what can never be < 0
according to its type.
I am assuming this is C code. C and C++ have different rules for enums.
This isn't strictly true. The C standard does not say that enums are
unsigned. It only says that they are equivalent
59 matches
Mail list logo
