http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54675
Bug #: 54675
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Many libstdc++ testsuite failures in
ext/random
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCO
-191648-lto-fortran-checking-yes-rtl-df/
--without-cloog --without-ppl
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120923 (experimental) (GCC)
Tested revisions:
r191648 - crash
4.7 r191640 - OK
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-09-23
09:22:20 UTC ---
191649 FAIL
and, sorry, i cant reduce testcase :(
if i run
'g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I/home/dimhen/src/CSPbuild/shared/cplib -I../..
-I/usr/local/include -DUNIX -DLINUX -I/ho
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54675
--- Comment #1 from Uros Bizjak 2012-09-23 09:23:49
UTC ---
I have a patch. __alpha badname should be avoided.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
--- Comment #4 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko 2012-09-23
09:33:32 UTC ---
new in r191649 is eer.location --> DateTime.cpp:934:1
line 934 is outermost '}' in src file
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
Frzderzk Dziarmagowski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdziarmagowski at gmail d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54675
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
10:04:52 UTC ---
Indeed patch pre-approved. Normally we use __alpha_val in such cases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54677
Bug #: 54677
Summary: [4.8 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/decltype32.C (test
for excess errors) with -m64 after revision 191564
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53922
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres
2012-09-23 10:32:11 UTC ---
> The new gcc.dg/torture/pr53922.c testcase fails on darwin. ...
This is pr54083.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54677
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54678
Bug #: 54678
Summary: second call to get_environment_variable gives valgrind
warning with 8-byte integers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54677
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
10:48:44 UTC ---
Still can't reproduce in a normal testsuite run. Let me check again with
multilib and explicit -m64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54677
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-23
10:49:53 UTC ---
> I tweaked the dg-error lines and didn't see any problem when I run the
> testsuite, weird. Let me double check. Not sure from your PR which are exactly
> the excess err
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka 2012-09-23 10:50:29
UTC ---
Created attachment 28253
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28253
partially reduced testcase
Reducing goes very slowly, this has been reducing for over a day
e-libs --enable-bootstrap4
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120923 (experimental) [trunk revision 191649] (GCC)
$ /usr/local/gcc_current/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/cc1plus
-quiet -v -I . -I /home/dimhen/src/CSPbuild/shared/cplib -I ../.. -I
/usr/local/include -I /home/dimhen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54675
--- Comment #3 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-09-23 11:24:53 UTC ---
Author: uros
Date: Sun Sep 23 11:24:46 2012
New Revision: 191650
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191650
Log:
PR libstdc++/54675
* inc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54551
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54676
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||polacek at redhat dot com
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54676
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikpe at it dot uu.se
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679
Bug #: 54679
Summary: Erroneous "Expected P edit descriptor" in conjunction
with L descriptor
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Statu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679
--- Comment #1 from Nick Maclaren 2012-09-23 12:19:00
UTC ---
Please reduce the severity to trivial, and change it to "Confusing
diagnostic"! It's my error, at root, but gfortran could do better.
I had forgotten the relevant constraint
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54680
Bug #: 54680
Summary: [SH] Unnecessary int-float-int conversion of fsca
fixed point input
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54677
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
12:30:15 UTC ---
Most definitely a dejagnu buffer isn't big enough. Luckily, we can add
something like:
// { dg-options -ftemplate-depth=10 }
without changing the substance of the test. May
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54681
Bug #: 54681
Summary: [SH] Add tanf approximation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priori
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54680
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54681
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54632
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54682
Bug #: 54682
Summary: [SH] Replace constant loads with reg-reg copies
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhanceme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54677
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-23
13:38:51 UTC ---
> Maybe you can give it a try now, but seems a good idea anyway.
I have tested without failure
check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=decltype32.C --target_board=unix'{-m32,-m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54683
Bug #: 54683
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54683
--- Comment #1 from John David Anglin 2012-09-23
13:46:13 UTC ---
The difference is actually in the .debug_line section.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54677
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
14:04:12 UTC ---
Great, I did the same. I'm checking it in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54677
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-23 14:21:41 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Sun Sep 23 14:21:35 2012
New Revision: 191651
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191651
Log:
2012-09-23 Paolo Carlini
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54677
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54679
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49017
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51708
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
Mikael Pettersson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
nls
--with-as=/usr/local/bin/as --with-ld=/usr/local/bin/ld --disable-checking
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.0 20120923 (experimental) [trunk revision 191651] (GCC)
This is the error:
/export/devel/net/src/gcc/head/gcc/gcc/ipa-prop.c: In function 'bool
visit_ref_for_mod_analysi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53375
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||avr
Status|UNCONF
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54683
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin 2012-09-23
18:00:42 UTC ---
At revision 191650, the files change to:
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/cp/init.o differs
gcc/cp/decl.o differs
hppa-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/iostream-inst.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54675
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-09-23
18:44:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> It may be yet another SRA problem.
Perhaps not, -fno-tree-sra makes no difference. Looking through the tree dumps
I see the wrong code first a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
Bug #: 54685
Summary: [SH] Improve unsigned int comparison with 0x7FFF
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54685
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
--- Comment #9 from Frzderzk Dziarmagowski
2012-09-23 19:52:29 UTC ---
Confirmed, jackd compiled with -O1 -fno-tree-fre works as expected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
Bug #: 54686
Summary: std::abs (long long) resorts to std::abs (double) if
llabs is absent
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2012-09-23
20:37:40 UTC ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Sun Sep 23 20:37:37 2012
New Revision: 191654
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191654
Log:
PR tree-optimization/54669
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54676
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unas
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54669
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
|com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
20:49:11 UTC ---
Actually, is normally included by as an implementation
detail, thus I suspect the C++11 bits in are also disabled for this
target. Looks like the target maintainers need some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53976
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-23 20:50:23
UTC ---
The clrt insn gets placed into another basic block, thus using a peephole will
not work in this case. In order to be able to eliminate the clrt (or any sett)
the value of the T bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
20:56:51 UTC ---
Sorry, forgot that only declares some types. Thus, all in all, the
issue is really that should provide abs (long) and abs (long long)
and it isn't because below it llabs is mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-23 21:00:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Note that the abs(long) and abs(long long) overloads, which you probably want
> around, are actually declared in , which you are not including
> (-std=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||sh*-*-*
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
21:15:30 UTC ---
Thanks for the message, Marc, I think we are both missing something here,
because abs (long long) apparently (I didn't write the code) has already a fall
back open coded impleme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-23 21:20:46
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Er, abs is the exception there. signed integers have their own overloads of
> abs
> (in cstdlib). Seems like only unsigned integers get converted to doub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53976
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-23 21:26:54
UTC ---
Interestingly, the following function shows some improved behavior (notice the
removed volatile mem store):
int test_2_1 (int* a, int b, int c)
{
a[1] = b != 0;
if (b ==
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54083
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at bromo dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|SH Target: Inefficient |[SH] Inefficient
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54083
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-23
21:37:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 28255
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28255
alternative patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-23
21:37:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Thanks god (or whoever)
Would that make me a half-god? seems dangerous...
> that the following:
>
> unsigned int test_xx (unsigned int a)
> {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51244
--- Comment #53 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-23
21:41:55 UTC ---
Another case that seems to go awry:
int test_1 (int a, int b, int c, int* d)
{
bool x = a == 0;
d[2] = !x;
return x ? b : c;
}
-O2 -m4:
tst r4,r4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52945
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin10 |*-apple-darwin*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37912
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #11 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-23
21:50:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Thanks god (or whoever)
>
> Would that make me a half-god? seems dangerous...
>
> > that the following:
> >
> > un
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54650
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2012-09-23
21:56:33 UTC ---
This PR is fixed on powerpc-apple-darwin9 and x86_64-apple-darwin10 by the
patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-09/msg01573.html . Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41722
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-23
21:58:27 UTC ---
This works for me with arm-linux-gnueabi which is now the only supported arm
linux target.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41797
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41366
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm-elf-unknown |arm*-*-*
Host|x86-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #12 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-23
22:10:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> You really scared me now.
> unsigned long is also a nop.
That's only because unsigned long has less bits than the mantissa of double on
your platf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53663
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson 2012-09-23
22:12:07 UTC ---
Although -fno-tree-fre works for the test case in #c3, adjusting it to use
__builtin_memcpy() for the assignment in f() results in wrong code even with
-fno-tree-fre.
Th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-23
22:21:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 28256
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28256
always define abs(long long)
This is what I had in mind (this abs(long long) is not a fallba
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|sh4-unknown-linux-gnu |sh*-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #14 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-23
22:34:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Created attachment 28256 [details]
> always define abs(long long)
>
> This is what I had in mind (this abs(long long) is not a fallback, that's the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski 2012-09-23
22:35:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I've confirmed that this also happens for SH-anything.
> Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the parts where things go wrong. Andrew,
> any hints wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-23 22:39:05
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I've confirmed that this also happens for SH-anything.
> > Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the parts where things go wro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-09-23 22:40:10 UTC ---
Test hasn't been removed. I also don't see the fail anymore.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
22:43:02 UTC ---
Ok... thanks Marc for handling this. If we could handle in the same way
div(long long, long long), it would be great and more consistent. Are we sure
we can't?
Also, too bad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
22:52:50 UTC ---
I also note that so far we added the long long overloads only in C++11 mode. I
know that elsewhere in the library we have long long overloads in C++98 mode
too as extensions, b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-23
22:54:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Ok... thanks Marc for handling this. If we could handle in the same way
> div(long long, long long), it would be great and more consistent. Are we sur
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #18 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-23
23:01:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I also note that so far we added the long long overloads only in C++11 mode. I
> know that elsewhere in the library we have long long overloads in C++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #19 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
23:03:30 UTC ---
Ok, let's leave llabs and lldiv alone, for now at least.
Otherwise, the lldiv_t issue is really annoying, I'm not sure (anymore) we want
to handle abs and div separately...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #20 from Oleg Endo 2012-09-23
23:04:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
>
> For llabs: why bother, it isn't like there is anything fancy llabs could be
> doing. Is the point that with -Os, a call to llabs is slightly shorter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
23:06:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > I also note that so far we added the long long overloads only in C++11
> > mode. I
> > know that elsewhere in the li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #22 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-23
23:08:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> I saw some other places in the library that used long
> long without any macro protection, so I did the same.
>
> Where, exactly?
numeric_limits
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
23:11:40 UTC ---
That's fine, not an overload.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #24 from Marc Glisse 2012-09-23
23:16:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> That's fine, not an overload.
__lg?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #25 from Paolo Carlini 2012-09-23
23:18:26 UTC ---
That's only internal.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45360
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
Host|i686-pc-cygw
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54686
--- Comment #26 from Kazumoto Kojima 2012-09-24
00:16:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
FYI, same on sh-linux, though my glibc for gcc tests is a bit dated. Ugh.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45360
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-09-24 00:16:59 UTC ---
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This should be a simple of adding a MULTILIB_MATCHES to t-arm-elf .
> Something like:
> MULTILIB_MATC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48796
--- Comment #4 from bryan 2012-09-24 00:32:10 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> You appearantly ran out of memory and the kernel decided to kill cc1. This
> is likely not a GCC bug. How much memory do you have?
>
> Please attach appr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54674
--- Comment #6 from William J. Schmidt 2012-09-24
01:38:37 UTC ---
Andrew, thanks for chasing this down. I'll have a look.
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
