Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: chris2553 at googlemail dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-pc-linux
GCC host tr
--- Comment #1 from chris2553 at googlemail dot com 2008-09-05 14:54
---
Created an attachment (id=16233)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16233&action=view)
Preprocessed file that triggers the problem
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37384
--- Comment #5 from chris2553 at googlemail dot com 2008-09-09 17:50
---
Subject: Re: Assembler error message when building vlc-0.9.1
On Saturday 06 September 2008, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-06 21
mal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: chris2553 at googlemail dot com
GCC build triplet: i386-pc-linux
GCC host triplet: i386-pc-linux
GCC target triplet: i386-pc-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41955
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chris2553 at googlemail dot com
Created attachment 32815
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32815&action=edit
Preprcessed source file
I've bumped into an ICE when building wine-1.7.19 with gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61215
Chris Clayton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chris2553 at googlemail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61215
--- Comment #7 from Chris Clayton ---
I can confirm that with Vladimir's patch applied to gcc-4.9-20140521,
wine-1.7.19 now compiles successfully.
Thanks everyone.
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chris2553 at googlemail dot com
Building qt-creator-3.2.0 with this week's 4.9.2 (21040820) snapshot fails.
Building it with last week's 4.9.2 (20140813) snapshot succeeds.
My system is a 32 bit user space running on a 64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #1 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 33377
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33377&action=edit
Preprocessed source file
ETOOBIG on uncompressed attachment. Now compressed with xz.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #3 from Chris Clayton ---
Yes, the preprocessed file is the one providing the unresolved references.
It surely won't be a surprise to anyone to here that the same failure occurs
when building with yesterday's 4.9 snapshot 4.9-2014082
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #5 from Chris Clayton ---
I reverted the code change from r214208 with the following patch:
--- gcc-4.9-20140827-orig/gcc/cp/decl2.c2014-08-20 02:54:40.0
+0100
+++ gcc-4.9-20140827/gcc/cp/decl2.c 2014-09-01 21:07:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #7 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 33439
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33439&action=edit
Pre-processed cppcodemodelinspectordialog
cppcodemodelinspectordialog.ii compressed with xz.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #9 from Chris Clayton ---
That seems odd to me, although I'm happy to be told I'm wrong. I base this on
the fact that reverting the code change from r214208 permits a successful
build. MoreOver, in both the failed and sucessful builds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton ---
Sorry, you'll have to stick with me here while a figure out what that means.
I think you are saying that prior to r214208, the symbols definedMacros() and
headerPaths() were present but effectively no-ops.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62224
--- Comment #17 from Chris Clayton ---
I can confirm that with Jason's code changes (referenced in comment 15) to
gcc/cp/decl2.c and gcc/gimple-fold.c, the resultant compiler successfully
builds qt-creator-3.2.0. Thanks Jason.
nks
--
Summary: ICE with g++ from 4.4.3 20100112 (prerelease)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: chri
--- Comment #1 from chris2553 at googlemail dot com 2010-01-17 10:29
---
Created an attachment (id=19631)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19631&action=view)
Preprocessed input
Had to gzip the file because at 1.1Mb it was bounced by bugzilla.
--
--- Comment #7 from chris2553 at googlemail dot com 2010-01-18 22:24
---
I can confirm that the patch at comment 4 has fixed the ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42773
s: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: chris2553 at googlemail dot com
GCC build triplet: 386-pc-linux
GCC host triplet: i386-pc-linux
GCC target triplet: 386-pc-linux
http
--- Comment #2 from chris2553 at googlemail dot com 2007-01-05 05:56
---
Subject: Re: aspell-0.60.5 fails to build with -O3 on gcc-4.1.2 20061222
(prerelease)
Thanks for the reply.
On Thursday 04 January 2007 22:25, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Comment #
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chris2553 at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Building 11-20201122 (with gcc-10-20201121 or gcc-10-20201114) results in an
ICE as follows:
/home/chris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #1 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 49611
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49611&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #2 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 49612
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49612&action=edit
Full build log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #4 from Chris Clayton ---
I've done a few more builds of snapshot releases of gcc-11. Using with
gcc-10-20201122, I get the ICE building 11-2020115, but 11-20201108 and
20201101 both build successfully.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #7 from Chris Clayton ---
Yes, Richard's correct. I'm building from snapshot releases. That's why I used
the term "snapshot releases" in comment 4.
I've cloned git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and am bisecting between
b642fca1c31b2e2175e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #8 from Chris Clayton ---
Sorry, my last comment contains an error. git bisect start... reported 7
bisections would be needed not that there were only 7 commits.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #11 from Chris Clayton ---
I've finished the bisect and landed at:
[chris:~/scratch/gcc-ICE/gcc]$ git bisect good
bd87cc14ebdb6789e067fb1828d5808407c308b3 is the first bad commit
commit bd87cc14ebdb6789e067fb1828d5808407c308b3
Author
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 49622
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49622&action=edit
git bisect log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #13 from Chris Clayton ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9)
> Ok, so the question is: does it reproduce with the current master or now?
Short answer: Yes, it does.
A build done this morning (after pulling the latest change
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953
--- Comment #22 from Chris Clayton ---
I've applied Richard's patch to the 20201122 snapshot and can happily report
that the build now completes successfully. My thanks to Martin and Richard.
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chris2553 at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I get the following ICE bump when compiling firefox-99.0 (and 99.0.1) with a
gcc installation built from the gcc-11-20220409 snapshot. The same ICE occurs
with gcc-11-20220402.
30:42.01 In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #2 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 52802
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52802&action=edit
First requested file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #3 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 52803
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52803&action=edit
Second requested file - part1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #4 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 52804
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52804&action=edit
Second Requested file - part2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #5 from Chris Clayton ---
The .ii file was huge so I've had to split it and then compress the parts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #6 from Chris Clayton ---
I'm struggling to get the compiler command line. The build system is wrapped in
a build tool called mach and I'm darned if I can find an argument that will
cause it to report the command it is about to launc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #17 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 52810
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52810&action=edit
Compiler commands
Finally got them by running running "ps ax" in a while true loop, grepping the
output for t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #24 from Chris Clayton ---
I see the patch is for gcc-12. As I said in comment, I don't get the ICE with
the latest gcc-12 snapshot, but is it worth me applying the patch to gcc-11
(with which I do get the ICE) and testing a build wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #25 from Chris Clayton ---
I went ahead and patched gcc-11-0220409 and with the resultant compiler have
had two successful builds of firefox-99. I then reverted to the unpatched gcc
and a build of firefox-99 failed with the same ICE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
--- Comment #33 from Chris Clayton ---
On 20/04/2022 07:46, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105256
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
>
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chris2553 at googlemail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 53246
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53246&action=edit
GCC diagnostics file 1
I'm trying to build the gcc-13-20220626 s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #1 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53247
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53247&action=edit
GCC diagnostics file 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #2 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53248
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53248&action=edit
GCC diagnostics file 3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #3 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53249
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53249&action=edit
GCC diagnostics file 4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #4 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53250&action=edit
GCC diagnostics file 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #5 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53251
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53251&action=edit
GCC diagnostics file 6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #6 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53252
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53252&action=edit
GCC diagnostics file 7
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #7 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53253
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53253&action=edit
GCC diagnostics file 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #8 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53254
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53254&action=edit
GCC diagnostics file 9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #9 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53255
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53255&action=edit
Error messages output to terminal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #11 from Chris Clayton ---
On 03/07/2022 12:00, sch...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
>
> --- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab ---
> How did you build the bootstrap compiler?
>
I assume
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #12 from Chris Clayton ---
I've just run the build again with gcc-11-20220701 and get the same set of
ICEs. I've kept the files of diagnostics output by gcc and can provide them id
they will be helpful.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #15 from Chris Clayton ---
On 04/07/2022 00:12, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #16 from Chris Clayton ---
I've tried two further build of gcc-13 using gcc-12-20220702.
The gcc-13-20220703 snapshot fails with the same ICEs but the 20220619 snapshot
builds successfully.
So we have 13-20220626 and 13-20220703 bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #17 from Chris Clayton ---
I've cloned git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and bisected between 13-20220626
(ff35dbc02092fbcd3d814fcd9fe8e871c3f741fd) and 13-20220619
(4390e7bfbc641a52c6192b448768dafdf4565527) as bad and good respectively.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #18 from Chris Clayton ---
Created attachment 53256
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53256&action=edit
git bisect log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #19 from Chris Clayton ---
Hi
On 04/07/2022 00:12, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
>
> Andrew Pinski changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #20 from Chris Clayton ---
On 08/07/2022 15:02, Chris Clayton wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 04/07/2022 00:12, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
>>
>> Andrew Pinski changed:
>>
>>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
--- Comment #23 from Chris Clayton ---
On 18/07/2022 19:13, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106172
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
59 matches
Mail list logo
