http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-11 13:56:56 UTC ---
> --- Comment #19 from Dave Korn 2010-11-11 13:38:04
> UTC ---
> Hi Rainer, I'm closing this bug despite not having heard back from you about
> your latest boots
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #18 from Dave Korn 2010-11-11 13:34:04
UTC ---
Author: davek
Date: Thu Nov 11 13:33:59 2010
New Revision: 166601
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166601
Log:
PR bootstrap/46397
PR bootstrap/46362
* co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
URL|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-10 17:27:09 UTC ---
> Well, as soon as you upgrade your binutils or install gold, it will start
> working.
gold doesn't work on any of my platforms, and GNU ld only on Solaris.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #14 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-10 12:35:18 UTC ---
I'll give it a try once my current IRIX 6.5 bootstrap finishes (which
may take another couple of hours at least).
But even so, the question remains what's the poi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22358|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #12 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 23:08:40
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > I wouldn't worry about bool for this code.
> >
> > I'm not sure that int64_t is sure to be defined. uint64_t is in the
> > con
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #11 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 23:07:45
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I wouldn't worry about bool for this code.
>
> I'm not sure that int64_t is sure to be defined. uint64_t is in the configure
> script and so will be defined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #10 from Ian Lance Taylor 2010-11-09 22:24:59
UTC ---
I wouldn't worry about bool for this code.
I'm not sure that int64_t is sure to be defined. uint64_t is in the configure
script and so will be defined for sure.
This is going to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-09 22:13:39 UTC ---
> How about this? Compiles OK on i686-pc-cygwin with -std=c89 added to the
> cflags.
Haven't tried yet, but wouldn't it be cleaner to use code as in
gcc/system.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #22354|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #7 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 21:54:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> The LTO plugin is a fairly small piece of code; how hard would it be to
> eliminate any C99 dependencies?
Just looking at that now in response to Eric's comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ian at airs dot com
--- Comment #6 fro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #5 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 21:04:29
UTC ---
BTW note that this needs a run of autoheader in the lto-plugin dir, as well as
autoconf there and at top-level.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #4 from Dave Korn 2010-11-09 21:00:47
UTC ---
Created attachment 22354
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22354
proposed patch
ISTM the main issue (common to this and Bug 46397) is C99, so this patch adds a
test for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
Dave Korn changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2010-11-09 10:13:59 UTC ---
I've just had another report in private mail about Solaris 10 bootstrap
failing because errors out if not used in a C99 compilation.
It seems this is highly unport
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth 2010-11-08 21:56:58 UTC
---
I'm now using the attached patch as a workaround, simply disabling the
lto-plugin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46362
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth 2010-11-08 21:56:25 UTC
---
Created attachment 22337
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22337
workaround patch
21 matches
Mail list logo