https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95253
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Starke ---
That is what I did as workaround for me, but I am not sure how this affacts
other targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100460
Bug ID: 100460
Summary: [11/12 Regression] mingw build broken due to use of
unsupported open() flags
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
Bug ID: 100461
Summary: [11/12 Regression] mingw build broken due to change of
rdtsc implementation
Product: gcc
Version: 11.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Starke ---
Created attachment 50772
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50772&action=edit
rdtsc.c
Please find attached the mingw-w64 file.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Starke ---
Thank you for the suggestion, however, I am not involved in the mingw-w64
project. Furthermore, the fact that this regression remains against all
versions of mingw-w64 known to date does not change.
It is al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100461
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Starke ---
This bug was fixes in mingw-w64. The bug fix is included since versions 8.0.1.
See
https://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/mailman/mingw-w64-public/thread/bb03f15f-db70-a511-a10d-396fbd8cf3c1%40126.com/#msg37259
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #11 from Daniel Starke ---
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Starke ---
That means this is considered to be valid C code?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
Bug ID: 117796
Summary: Accepting undefined symbols with -flto -O0
-ftoplevel-reorder -fipa-reference-addressable
Product: gcc
Version: 14.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117796
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Starke ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Daniel Starke from comment #6)
> > That means this is considered to be valid C code?
> So you are using too old ncurses.
Thank you for the research
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
Bug ID: 120407
Summary: [12.3/13/14/15/16 Regression] Binary size manifold for
static linked MinGW target (e.g.
std::__throw_system_error)
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Starke ---
Created attachment 61503
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61503&action=edit
preprocessed file at regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Starke ---
Created attachment 61502
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61502&action=edit
preprocessed file before regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Starke ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> Can you provide the preprocessed source?
>
> Also since you are linking to a static binary, can you attach the before and
> after linker map?
The linker map be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #10 from Daniel Starke ---
Created attachment 61504
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61504&action=edit
linker maps before and at regression
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120407
--- Comment #12 from Daniel Starke ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11)
> Note I suspect GCC 15 and 16 are ok though due to how branches to
> unreachable are now skipped over for inlining heurstics.
I first came accross this issue w
16 matches
Mail list logo
