http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #21 from Jack Howarth 2011-03-14
06:10:09 UTC ---
We also need to scratch the section of http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html
under Darwin/Mac OS X which says...
LTO-support.
Darwin has benefited from ongoing work on LTO; support
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47200
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44909
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47125
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48030
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48108
--- Comment #2 from Mike Stump 2011-03-14
03:13:27 UTC ---
Another fix might be to have pure elf .o files... ld I think will read elf .o
files... [s] Don't tell anyone I said that. If not, we might be able to
get Apple to do that. This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48108
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2011-03-14
03:10:24 UTC ---
Note that LTO was disabled for gcc 4.6.0 due to the inability of end-users to
obtain an appropriate Xcode 3.2.5 now that the broken Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 have been
released.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #20 from Mike Stump 2011-03-14
03:09:08 UTC ---
I'm ambivalent. If people developing or following would like one, feel free to
create one. Depending on how safe it is, we could put it in sooner, and by
that time, we'd need one.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48108
Summary: lto should be containerized in a single mach-o section
on darwin
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #19 from Jack Howarth 2011-03-14
02:57:50 UTC ---
Should I create a new PR for following the progress of the re-implementation of
LTO on darwin?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
m...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #17 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-14
02:47:53 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Mon Mar 14 02:47:49 2011
New Revision: 170929
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170929
Log:
2011-03-13 Jack Howarth
PR lto/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42566
--- Comment #12 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> 2011-03-14
02:18:20 UTC ---
I tried to test this but I can't get to it because now I'm stuck with a
bootstrap compare bug.
Actually, if the object file comparison happens after the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth 2011-03-13
22:45:57 UTC ---
Actually the situation with Xcode 3.2.5 is pretty grim as well. Currently only
Xcode 3.2.2 is available for download from connect.apple.com. So people needing
to do new installs are tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48107
Summary: [C++0x] no explicit conversion from scoped enumeration
type to bool
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.5
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #15 from Jack Howarth 2011-03-13
21:54:17 UTC ---
FYI, it it comes down to having a dependency on libelf or heavily lobbying
Apple to fix the broke change made to the assembler in Xcode 4.0.1 and 4.1, I
would go with the second option
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48106
Summary: [C++0x] ICE with scoped enum with fixed underlying
type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.6
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43700
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48066
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48066
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig 2011-03-13
20:57:53 UTC ---
Author: tkoenig
Date: Sun Mar 13 20:57:49 2011
New Revision: 170924
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170924
Log:
2011-03-13 Thomas Koenig
PR libfortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe 2011-03-13 20:54:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Alright, multiple segments will not work. Or even if they do, it is another
> solution that may or may not work in the future depending on the whims of
> App
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #13 from Steven Bosscher 2011-03-13
20:41:12 UTC ---
Alright, multiple segments will not work. Or even if they do, it is another
solution that may or may not work in the future depending on the whims of
Apple.
So, a rewrite it will h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48090
--- Comment #9 from arnaud patard 2011-03-13
20:40:27 UTC ---
I confirm that backporting r159644 and r159683 make things work. From comment
8, I guess that the bug is still there and that one can still hit it sooner or
later, right ? (btw, amazi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe 2011-03-13 20:32:56
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > The easiest way to fix this is maybe to just have more than one GNU_LTO
> > segment. AFAIU the limit of 255 sections is a limit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe 2011-03-13 20:19:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The easiest way to fix this is maybe to just have more than one GNU_LTO
> segment. AFAIU the limit of 255 sections is a limit per segment. It is not
> diffic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #10 from Steven Bosscher 2011-03-13
19:48:41 UTC ---
The easiest way to fix this is maybe to just have more than one GNU_LTO
segment. AFAIU the limit of 255 sections is a limit per segment. It is not
difficult to have multiple GNU_LTO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48090
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kazu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48102
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48102
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48102
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48102
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc-apple-darwin9 |
Priority|P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47348
--- Comment #10 from Paul Thomas 2011-03-13 17:37:47
UTC ---
Author: pault
Date: Sun Mar 13 17:37:43 2011
New Revision: 170923
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170923
Log:
2011-03-13 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/47348
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40838
--- Comment #87 from Dzianis Kahanovich 2011-03-13
16:56:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #85)
> Am I the only one who thinks this bug should be nominated as the first
> priority
> GCC 4.6.0 bug?
Some lazy people ;) may use global mstackrealign
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41650
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48104
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41603
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48104
Summary: aa
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: bo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41107
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41083
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48090
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39988
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48103
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35913
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48103
Summary: Lambda function incorrect syntax leads to internal
compiler error and segfault
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46896
--- Comment #16 from Paul Thomas 2011-03-13 14:16:25
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Tobias,
>
> You shame me - I undertook to do something with this one and did not.
> I do not know that the fix is compatible even with 4.5 - I think not.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26458
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-13
13:11:38 UTC ---
Ian, I see you are returning to this old issue. Really, today I don't have a
strong opinion, if you are willing to post to the mailing list a patchlet (I
think both std/ostream and bi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45273
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #23643|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-13
12:24:13 UTC ---
Do you have a suggestion for a better error? We could use a static_assert in
std::allocator to reject const T
As far as I can see, the reason the code is invalid is exactly the rea
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48102
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-03-13
12:23:47 UTC ---
I am now at stage 2 with the following patch:
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/graphite-cloog-compat.h2010-10-01 14:21:41.0
+0200+++ ../gcc-4.6-work/gcc/graphite-cloog-compat.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48094
--- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe 2011-03-13 12:13:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (a) the first is because LTO has produced two image_info instances with
> different mangled names ...
>
> e.g. L_OBJC_ImageInfo.2044 / L_OBJC_ImageInfo.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41894
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||avr at gjlay dot de
--- Comment #10 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48102
Summary: [4.6 Regression] Bootstrap failure for
powerpc-apple-darwin9: error: macro "build_cloog_prog"
requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45273
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
Summary: obscure error message with std::set
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassig.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe 2011-03-13 10:07:50
UTC ---
my +1 generally to comment #8,
We are (re)-discussing with the Apple developer for ld (obviously that can't be
in this forum).
IMO, 'as' is trying to check "if someone tries to write a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48086
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot
59 matches
Mail list logo