https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
Joel Sherrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
Can I please ask someone to confirm that the patch works and mark this issue as
resolved?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #19 from Joel Sherrill ---
Sorry.. wrong PR.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #18 from Joel Sherrill ---
I added Jon Beniston who did the initial port and Sebastien Bourdeauducq who is
listed as the lm32 maintainer but hasn't committed since 2011. I hope one of
them can help out here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #17 from Martin Liška ---
Author: marxin
Date: Thu Jan 15 09:53:55 2015
New Revision: 219636
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=219636&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Target optimization nodes: add support for arrays.
PR target/64377
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #16 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you for testing, there's patch I've just sent to gcc-patches ML:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg01008.html.
Martin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #15 from Sandra Loosemore ---
It looks like the apparent regressions in my test results are actually the
result of cascading errors from the test harness (Dejagnu is failing to fully
reset state after a test that got an error talking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you for testing. If the patch is going to be OK, I will send it to
mailing list with corresponding ChangeLog entry.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #13 from Sandra Loosemore ---
I think the new version of the patch in comment 11 is probably OK. I ran the
entire gcc testsuite (but not g++, etc yet) and have a couple hundred
regressions compared to my r217010 build, but I don't se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 34435
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34435&action=edit
Fixed version of the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
There's fixed version of the patch where I fixed wrong loop boundaries:
for (int i = n2fpu_code_num - 1; i >= 0; i--)
ptr->saved_fpu_custom_code[i] = (int) bp_unpack_value (bp, 64);
Can you please re-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #10 from Sandra Loosemore ---
Test results do not look good with the new patch; over 7000 new failures on
-flto tests in the gcc testsuite alone. :-( I see a lot of
lto1: internal compiler error: in operator[], at vec.h:736
0x884ab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #9 from Sandra Loosemore ---
I've started running nios2-elf regression tests on hardware to compare against
a pre-breakage version from early November; it probably will not be done until
tomorrow morning.
I've heard that someone is w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #8 from Joel Sherrill ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> Hello.
>
> There's suggested patch [1], may I ask someone from nios2 community for
> testing the patch?
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg004
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #6 from Joel Sherrill ---
(In reply to Sandra Loosemore from comment #5)
> I think complete failure to build GCC for nios2 target due to
> target-inspecific changes is a serious regression that needs to be addressed
> for GCC 5 releas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #5 from Sandra Loosemore ---
I think complete failure to build GCC for nios2 target due to target-inspecific
changes is a serious regression that needs to be addressed for GCC 5 release.
Can we up the priority?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
Sandra Loosemore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at codesourcery dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
Sandra Loosemore changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz
Assig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Target|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64377
--- Comment #1 from Joel Sherrill ---
Looking at the generated options-save.c, the first line of this method is
clearly incorrect in the cast on the RHS. It looks like a full declaration and
not a type. If anyone familiar with the magic in these
21 matches
Mail list logo
