https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119896
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from James K. Lowden ---
> It seems likely to me that this is a cascading error stemming perhaps from a
> big endian host. I will need to see the debug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #21 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #20 from James K. Lowden ---
> NAME_MAX has been removed entirely as of
> ca44643f75c437fb1fb4b17e59b72bc836d12cc6.
This commit isn't in th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120019
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> I've successfully bootstrapped with this patch on i386-pc-solaris2.11,
> n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120019
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak ---
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8)
>> Created attachment 61306 [details]
>> Simplified patch
I meant to get to this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119508
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Solaris results (64-bit-default only; there's no 32-bit Solaris target
support in rustc/cargo) are pretty weird (all on 20250411). In all
cases, I'm testing both 64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119725
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Tomasz Kamiński ---
> I do not (yet) have access to solaris machine. Would it be possible for you to
there's still a problem with account creation on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've now posted proper patches for the various issues breaking the
compilation of the COBOL frontend on Solaris:
cobol: Don't require GLOB_BRACE etc. [PR119217]
https://g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Given the recent flurry of activity to make the COBOL frontend (and
libgcobol) more portable, I've given a Solaris/amd64 build another t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
[...]
> Has this failure gone away? If not, would you be so kind as to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119460
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Paul Thomas ---
> This bug is due to wrong casting of 'dim'. It was caught prior to committing
> but I screwed up by only correcting three out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119217
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
The _Float128 handling is completely unportable, it turns out:
#if ! (__HAVE_FLOAT128 && __GLIBC_USE (IEC_60559_TYPES_EXT))
__HAVE_FLOAT128 is a glibc-internal macr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119218
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5)
>> Why is HAVE_DECL_BASENAME not defined?
[...]
> It seems that the second test do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119029
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Does it have in that case the desired effect? I mean, does Solaris dynamic
> linker complain with that
> __extension__ __
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119029
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Is _GLIBCXX_USE_INIT_PRIORITY_ATTRIBUTE defined on Solaris when using Solaris
> ld and/or when using gld?
On Solaris 11.4, it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119029
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Hmm, does this imply we should have a separate baseline files for those two
> configurations?
I'd rather not if it can some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118874
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Even just
[...]
> ICEs the same way, so this doesn't seem to be related to range for.
> Does this ICE even with older gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115032
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Gaius Mulley ---
> PR modula2/118703 has now been back ported onto gcc-14. Is the failure still
> present on Solaris/SPARC ?
No, last weekend's S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118610
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
> (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #1)
>> Indeed, I have reopened PR rtl-optimization/118067
>
> Sorry, I can not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92002
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski ---
> I can't reproduce with the reduced testcase in comment #6 with GCC 12+. I have
> not tested the original testcase thoug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106271
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #15 from Matthias Klose ---
> are you able to check this with 24.04 LTS as well?
No, the only RISC-V systems I have access to are in the cfarm, none of
which run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106271
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Matthias Klose ---
> also note that the Debian and Ubuntu builds are configured with
> --disable-multilib
While I hadn't passed that, the erro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106271
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Matthias Klose ---
> this is fixed in the 14 branch and in 15.
I know that's the claim; still the error happened when trying to build
trunk two days ago.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118714
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #3 from Paul-Antoine Arras ---
>> @Rainer, could you try with the patc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118714
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Paul-Antoine Arras ---
> @Rainer, could you try with the patch I just committed, see if it actually
> fixes it for Solaris?
Sure, will do. This will t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118689
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
[...]
> Here is a fix for the ICE on the build_cltz_expr side.
> And m2 FE should be extended to provide those builtins.
>
> 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116073
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Gaius Mulley ---
> Created attachment 60298
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60298&action=edit
> Proposed fix for 32 bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116073
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley ---
> Created attachment 60272
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60272&action=edit
> Proposed patch to correc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116073
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> Is this still an issue?
No, I can bootstrap gm2 on Solaris/SPARC without local hacks or
reversals.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116080
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #23 from Richard Biener ---
> What's the status here?
On both i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11 all musttail*
tests either PASS or are UNSUPPORTED.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114434
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Iain Buclaw ---
> @Rainer, I think I've found the cause for discrepancy, a use of size_t vs.
> widest integer for pointer offsets.
>
> Can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118314
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw ---
> I suspect one of them might be this issue
>
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/issues/20688
Resp. its Solaris equivalent. The other
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118314
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
> Changes made to the module itself.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blobdiff;f=libphobos/src/std/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #22 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> @all: Could you please test it on your machines, and let me know if it causes
> any further issues ? I plan to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #19 from Tobias Burnus ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #18)
>> This patch broke Solaris bootstrap when linking libgdruntime.la (both sparc
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117895
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
> Ugh. libgo + sparc + solaris 2. Hopefully I can find a way to reproduce
> this.
Shouldn't be too hard these days: the cfarm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117697
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> Even more strangely, I'd tried an i686-pc-linux-gnu build with
>> --enable-frame-pointer (the Solaris default), which showed the testsuite
>> failures befor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117697
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #7 from Haochen Jiang ---
> Testcase fixed on trunk.
Great, thanks.
> Since I do not have a Solaris machine, I could not to solve the problem on
> Sol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117698
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> Might be due to PR114189. Alternatively can you check whether --param
> vect-force-slp=0 makes the FAILs go away.
It does indee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102296
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Please Cc me on Solaris bugs from the beginning, otherwise I'm almost
guaranteed to miss them.
That said, where do you see this? (The PR refers to GCC 12.0). As far
as I could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98171
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from dje.gcc at gmail dot com ---
> IBM AIX has changed libintl and older versions are not in the default
> path. There may be other versions installed on t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98171
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn ---
> gcc119 now is AIX 7.3. If this doesn't work it won't be fixed.
How do you mean? What won't be fixed? Ada on AIX 7.2?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Sam James ---
> I think if it's working fine for you, I'm not going to worry about it until I
> have cause to log in again and figure out what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117170
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
> Bisecting has been pretty painful so I gave up for now. I ended up hitting
> other comparison failures for a lot of commits in the ran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116847
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
> I see similar errors (100 libstdc++ tests FAILing with excess errors) on
> Solaris, both sparc and x86.
The Solaris testsuite fail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115905
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
> unfortunately, (or ...) I Have not succeeded in reproducing this - so will
> need
> some help to identify what's being done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115905
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #7)
[...]
>> I guess so: cfarm216 is current Solaris 11.4/SPARC, the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115905
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #5)
>> The new test causes a SIGBUS on 32-bit Solaris/SPARC (sparc-sun-solaris2.11):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116653
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
> Is there an effective target for the test suite that only runs
> the tests on little-endian targets?
Sure: there's le. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116500
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to andi from comment #7)
>> Thanks. Updated patch. This one seems obvious so I'll commit soon.
>>
>&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116500
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen ---
> Do you have the dump file from tree-vect?
Already attached.
> I guess it just doesn't vectorize something here.
>
> The r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> Created attachment 58991
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58991&action=edit
> proposed patch
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116427
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Pierre-Emmanuel Patry dot com> ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>
>> I wonder what the way forward is here: just wait for g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> Sure, we can do that patch for now. Thanks. unsupported is fine too.
I've posted the patch now
https://gcc.gnu.org/pi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98678
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> This test is a bit tricky. The whole point is to check that performance of one
> operation is acceptable compared to a baseline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87589
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
> It does work for me on x86_64 GNU/Linux. The big stack allocation is handled
> by the split-stack support.
I think I see what&#x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112593
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #1)
>> The test also FAILs on Solaris 11.4, both sparc and x86, 32 and 64-bit.
>&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2024-05-29 8:17 a.m., ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
[...]
>> * sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu (again, c and c++ only
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115304
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> It should only need vect32 - basically I assumed the target can compose the
> 64bit vector from two 32bit elements. But it might be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114434
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw ---
> I see the test is pointer + 64-bit int. Is this UB on 32bit pointer
> platforms?
You're right: I only see the failure when d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #9)
>> > --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Biele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115294
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've identified the problem and tested a patch. Will commit shortly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
[...]
>> versions.) BTW, it'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> BTW, I see the target list says sparc*-sun-solaris2.11 which seems a cutnpasto
> from some ancient template: that particular v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #2)
>
>> You should use cfarm216 instead: it's way faster
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
> Aldy, when investigating PR ipa/114985, got along with just
>
> configure &&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115284
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
> Sorry. I bet something in reorg actually uses a barrier insn as a reference.
> I'll revert those three patches unless
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> It will be a few days before I can test. I've had three hard drives fail on
> my
> main hppa
> system i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115270
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Created attachment 58304
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58304&action=edit
> Tentative fix
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115031
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I've done some digging now, comparing mmap calls on Solaris/i386 and
Solaris/SPARC (counts and sizes each):
i386:
2 4096
7 8192
5 16384
7 32768
4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115208
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod ---
> Created attachment 58287
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58287&action=edit
> proposed patch
>
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115211
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> This was done on purpose, you can use -help=optimizers now I think.
The thread I cited rather suggested is was removed because Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Hongtao Liu ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3)
[...]
> uoops, does below patch fix the testcase on Solaris/x86?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114148
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
To investigate further, I've added comparison functions to a reduced
version of pr106010-7b.c, with
void
cmp_epi8 (_Complex unsigned char* a, _Complex unsigned char* b)
{
for (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
>
>> It's possible that all the lam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57025
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Alan Coopersmith ---
> While Solaris 11.3 support has been dropped from gcc now, Jonathan Perkins
> from pkgsrc found that just removing the defi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111641
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> It's possible that all the lambda frames are inlined, or skip+2 in
> stacktrace.cc causes us to skip real frames that we s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114072
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
>> I think the best we can do then is
>>
>> /* { dg-skip-if "PR tree-optimization/114072&qu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114072
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
> Hmm, is solaris-sparc big-endian? It seems so. That makes the bitfield
It is indeed.
> access require a VnQImode logical right s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115168
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Created attachment 58255
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58255&action=edit
> Tentative fix
Both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115106
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> as of r15-644, Ada bootstrap succeeded on i686-darwin9 and 17.
>
> Great!
Same on i386-pc-solaris2.11.
>> I do not kno
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Created attachment 58230
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58230&action=edit
> Tentative fix
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Created attachment 58229
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58229&action=edit
> Tentative fix
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115133
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> until one runs into
>
> s-oslock.ads:83:03: (style) bad indentation [-gnaty0]
> make[6]: *** [../gcc-interface/Makefile:306: a-undesu.o] Error 1
>
> No idea what&#x
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114985
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #29 from Aldy Hernandez ---
[...]
> Ok, what's the minimum configuration I need to build here?
>
> srcdir/configure --build=sparc-sun-solaris2.11
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114985
--- Comment #28 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #27 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> This is in cfarm216.cfarm.et:
>
> aldyh@s11-sparc:~/bld/clean$ hostname
> s11-sparc.cfarm
> aldyh@s11-sparc:~/bld/clean
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114985
--- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #25 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> prange has been enabled again, after testing on x86-64 and ppc64le linux.
> Aarch has no space to run tests on the compile farm,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115066
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Tom de Vries ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #10)
[...]
>> I wonder how best to handle this: just skip the test on sparc*-sun-solaris2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113719
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from Hongyu Wang ---
[...]
> Could you try the attachment and see if the error was solved? I tested with
I just bootstrapped with the patch included on i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
When I hack locally to avoid the indirection in the
definitions of the SOCK_* constants, only two gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-*.c
tests FAIL on Solaris:
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/fd-access-mode
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107750
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I think I've found what's going on: really has
#if !defined(_XPG4_2) || defined(__EXTENSIONS__)
#ifndef NC_TPI_CLTS
#define NC_TPI_CLTS 1 /* must
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112959
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #6)
>> What's there looks good to me.
>
> Cool, thank y
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114985
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> Created attachment 58168
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58168&action=edit
> proposed patch in te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114912
--- Comment #18 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #16 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #14)
>> > --- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
>> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114912
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Aldy Hernandez ---
> BTW, I'm waiting for a review, or at least a nod from a C++ savvy person here:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112959
--- Comment #6 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #5 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
> Rainer, do you think the three changes I made - and hence the current
> state of install.texi on trunk - address all the issues you
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114912
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
> If Aldy does not fix it by Saturday, I will give the union a try then. I will
Great, thanks. Your alignas patch also worked fi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113706
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill ---
> Should be fixed now.
It is indeed. Thanks a lot.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112958
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Gerald Pfeifer ---
> FreeBSD i386 is on it's way out: FreeBSD 14 is the last series supporting
> it; FreeBSD 15 is dropping support for it.
Ah, I w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111475
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
"dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org" writes:
> --- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
> Thanks. I've been working on this on cfarm216; I have a messy set of patches
&g
1 - 100 of 1223 matches
Mail list logo
