> Indeed this is clearly correct. And one does wonder how this
> missing line has managed to not cause problems elsewhere...
I've installed the patch on the mainline, after bootstrapping/regtesting it on
x86_64-suse-linux. Do you want me to put it on the 4.0 branch too?
--
Eric Botcazou
BTW, did you get a chance to look into:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24003
I haven't yet, but I normally use x86_64, so I'm not running into it.
And I'm also confused about the EH_REGION stuff.
This restores bootstrap on x86 and x86_64-linux, thanks
for looking into this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01332.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01333.html
BTW, did you get a chance to look into:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24003
which i
On 9/29/05, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > sparc64-linux
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01019.html
>
> Just to make it clear: that's not a SPARC 64-bit Ada compiler, only a 32-bit
> Ada compiler with a questionable name.
Right!
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
> Other platforms with one or few ACATS failures:
[...]
> sparc-solaris2.8
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01077.html
The problem is generic (PR ada/20753), although it only shows up in the ACATS
testsuite at -O2 on SPARC and PA for some reasons.
> sparc64-linux
> http://g
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:32:46AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> The real fix is below, though I haven't run it throuh a testing cycle yet.
> I was wondering how this ever worked:
Indeed this is clearly correct. And one does wonder how this
missing line has managed to not cause problems elsewher
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> The patch to restore Ada bootstrap is a one liner: just revert
> the gimplify.c part of 2005-09-24 Richard Henderson's change
> in your tree (see below).
>
> I don't know what is the policy on patches that break Ada on x86-linux
> (here by revealing a latent middle-end bug
The patch to restore Ada bootstrap is a one liner: just revert
the gimplify.c part of 2005-09-24 Richard Henderson's change
in your tree (see below).
The real fix is below, though I haven't run it throuh a testing cycle yet.
I was wondering how this ever worked:
*** stor-layout.c
The patch to restore Ada bootstrap is a one liner: just revert
the gimplify.c part of 2005-09-24 Richard Henderson's change
in your tree (see below).
I don't know what is the policy on patches that break Ada on x86-linux
(here by revealing a latent middle-end bug - but I think latent or not
policy
Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many thanks to people enabling Ada in their builds!
I'd like to enable it for 4.1 CVS but that one is failing since last
week as reported in bugzilla :-(
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
> Many thanks to people enabling Ada in their builds!
Indeed, thanks to you, and thanks to Laurent for collecting these
results, and also filing bugzilla PRs when regressions are detected.
Arno
Zero ACATS fail on three platforms:
x86-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01292.html
x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01293.html
s390-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01257.html
Other platforms with one or few ACATS failur
On 9/28/05, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/27/05, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now that Benjamin and Eric have fixed the Solaris issues in libstdc++
> > (yay!), I know of no reason not to spin a release. I'm going to take a
> > final pass through the open PRs
On 9/27/05, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that Benjamin and Eric have fixed the Solaris issues in libstdc++
> (yay!), I know of no reason not to spin a release. I'm going to take a
> final pass through the open PRs and look for show-stoppers. Is anyone
> aware of regressions from
H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:58:46AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>>Now that Benjamin and Eric have fixed the Solaris issues in libstdc++
>>(yay!), I know of no reason not to spin a release. I'm going to take a
>>final pass through the open PRs and look for show-stoppers. Is any
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:58:46AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Now that Benjamin and Eric have fixed the Solaris issues in libstdc++
> (yay!), I know of no reason not to spin a release. I'm going to take a
> final pass through the open PRs and look for show-stoppers. Is anyone
> aware of regres
Andrew Pinski wrote:
But there are still issues.
PR 23691 is one of them which beaks boost.
I wasn't aware that there were still issues. Please assign me to PRs
that represent things I've broken; I'll fix them, or at least explicitly
unassign myself if I feel unfairly blamed.
In any case
On Sep 7, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
There's no special freeze for the 4.0 branch at this point; we'll
leave it in regression-fixes only mode. The branch will freeze when
I create the first release candidate.
Some of your C++ fixes have been quite invasive.
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
There's no special freeze for the 4.0 branch at this point; we'll
leave it in regression-fixes only mode. The branch will freeze when I
create the first release candidate.
Some of your C++ fixes have been quite invasive. Maybe it's too much
haste to spin the rc befor
There's no special freeze for the 4.0 branch at this point; we'll leave
it in regression-fixes only mode. The branch will freeze when I create
the first release candidate.
Some of your C++ fixes have been quite invasive. Maybe it's too much
haste to spin the rc before the bugs can be detec
20 matches
Mail list logo
