https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
--- Comment #22 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-15, at 7:02 PM, sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
>
> --- Comment #21 from Steve Kargl ---
> On Tue,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
--- Comment #25 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-16 12:12 PM, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68743
>
> --- Comment #24 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-29, at 5:05 PM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
>
> --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>> You
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-12-29, at 5:25 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68356
>
> --- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66858
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-01-19 6:38 AM, ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66858
>
> --- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> It passes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68244
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> Does this work now?
The ICE can be avoided by changing the register to one that can be fixed on
hppa. For example,
dave@mx3210:~/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite$ svn diff g++.dg/parse/parens
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69450
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-01-24, at 2:16 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I can prepare a patch to do that tomorrow.
This is what I'm testing. Not quite to failure point in build.
--
John Davi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69450
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-01-24, at 4:20 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> We might also want to split
> _GLIBCXX_NO_OBSOLETE_ISINF_ISNAN_DYNAMIC into two macros (although that's not
> neede
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60743
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-01-25 11:18 AM, tyrel at kulshanconcepts dot com wrote:
> Is there a flag I can add to `configure` or anything else I might be able to
> do
> to work around this issue so t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66685
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-06-30, at 4:36 PM, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Sorry, I missed that this was after r225000. Does the attached patch fix it?
No, we still have same error.
--
John Da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66796
--- Comment #1 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I don't believe this is a regression. It's a new test that Jeff added with the
changes to
the PA shift support for combine.
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66796
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-07-08, at 5:17 PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:
> When I was fixing the regressions from that work, I probably tested with
> hppa2.0w, perhaps there's something I misse
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67034
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-07-30, at 2:18 PM, aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> John, if you can help with that, would you like
> the asm for this one testcase, or is it easy enough for you to give the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67082
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-07-31, at 8:39 PM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is this a new failure? Nothing in this area has changed in libstdc++.
It is present on both 32 and 64-bit hpux, but not li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49500
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-01 15:32:35 UTC ---
On 1-Jul-11, at 6:47 AM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Hi,
> here is fixed version that does not warn. Can someone try it out,
> please?
While test o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49500
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-04 17:27:08 UTC ---
On 7/1/2011 6:47 AM, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49500
> Hi,
> here is fixed version that does not warn. Ca
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49725
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-13 16:00:24 UTC ---
On 7/13/2011 4:26 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Does it work on trunk then?
Yes.
The only change that I see that could cause this is:
2011-07-11 Mar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49724
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-14 11:54:32 UTC ---
On 14-Jul-11, at 4:40 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you confirm that this also comes from Martin's patch on the 4.6
> branch?
No, it doesn&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46350
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-14 11:57:34 UTC ---
On 14-Jul-11, at 4:44 AM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you submit the patch if it works?
It works. I will install later today after work if some
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-14 22:06:49 UTC ---
On 7/14/2011 4:35 PM, sje at cup dot hp.com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
>
> --- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey 2011-07-14 20:34:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 14:41:19 UTC ---
On 7/15/2011 4:37 AM, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
>
> --- Comment #5 from H.Merijn Brand 2011-07-15
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 16:09:28 UTC ---
On 7/15/2011 11:18 AM, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl wrote:
> I will make it available when it is done, but I'll still advice against
> using it when it doesn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 16:18:11 UTC ---
On 7/15/2011 11:51 AM, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
>
> --- Comment #8 from H.Merijn Brand 2011-07-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 17:15:17 UTC ---
On 7/15/2011 12:27 PM, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
>
> --- Comment #14 from H.Merijn Brand 2011-07-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 17:42:45 UTC ---
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
>
> --- Comment #17 from H.Merijn Brand 2011-07-15
> 17:36:59 UTC ---
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-15 19:15:06 UTC ---
I think the attached change will fix the bug.
Dave
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
--- Comment #22 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-16 13:13:45 UTC ---
On 15-Jul-11, at 11:59 PM, h.m.brand at xs4all dot nl wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49746
>
> --- Comment #20 from H.Merijn Brand
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49810
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-07-22 11:12:01 UTC ---
On 22-Jul-11, at 6:50 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> You probably get different prototypes with C vs. C++ for strsignal.
The prototype has to come f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49977
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-08-04 20:28:54 UTC ---
On 4-Aug-11, at 3:50 PM, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49977
>
> Or is the problem in fact in libgcc somewhere?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-08-08 22:13:29 UTC ---
Attached bug box sources. These are from hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00.
Dave
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-08-08 23:06:08 UTC ---
On 8-Aug-11, at 6:37 PM, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
Let's try this again.
--
John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50006
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2011-08-13 01:19:35 UTC ---
On 12-Aug-11, at 5:49 PM, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24993
> proposed patch
Testing on hppa2.0w-hp-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #17 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-07-12, at 12:36 PM, bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
>> don't have any ia64 hardware and I also don't have an 11.31 box. So,
>> there's a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-07-12 10:38 AM, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Patch looks reasonable but needs to be sent to gcc-patches with cc's.
Further, the patch needs to be submitted by someone wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
--- Comment #21 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-07-19, at 1:23 PM, bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66319
>
> --- Comment #20 from The Written Word com> ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69788
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2016-08-28, at 6:54 PM, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Does the failure reproduce with 4.9?
It's not present in 4.9.4:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-08/msg01
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99487
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-03-09 5:58 a.m., doko at debian dot org wrote:
> during RTL pass: final
> ../../src/gcc/function.c: In function 'void expand_function_start(tree)':
> ../../src/gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99552
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-03-11 10:08 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>> Usually, I add "-fno-common" to avoid these warnings on hppa*-*-hpux*.
> Isn't that redundant for C++, and on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99552
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-03-11 10:08 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>> FAIL: 29_atomics/atomic/wait_notify/bool.cc (test for excess errors)
>> Excess errors:
>> /test/gnu/gcc/gcc/libs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-10-12 2:18 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Guess nobody will feel responsible without more info ... maybe you can bisect
> or provide a good initial hint (last known go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-10-15 3:58 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> So, how do they differ? The comparison should be ignoring debug sections...
It looks like the .s file name is in object:
dave@at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-10-15 4:18 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-10-15 4:35 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Those are debug sections.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60630
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
My hpux11.00 machine died some years ago.
On hpux11.11, the only non prettyprinter fail is:
FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/proj.cc execution test
The prettyprinter tests all fail due to a perl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97805
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2020-11-13 7:39 a.m., ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Please give it a try when you get a chance.
Will do.
Thanks,
Dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68735
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Currently, we also have the following two additional fails:
FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/91997.cc print a
FAIL: libstdc++-prettyprinters/91997.cc print a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98003
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
There is no --as-needed support.
I think either approach would simplify things as most targets don't need to
link against libatomic.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015
--- Comment #44 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-02-09 2:01 p.m., ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This should be fixed on the 10 branch.
Thank you Eric 😁
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #47 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-02-17 11:46 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
>
> --- Comment #46 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> (In reply to John David
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #216 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-17 5:56 a.m., jvb at cyberscience dot com wrote:
> With the working as, I changed gcc to use brl instructions for calls,
> including
> tail calls:
>
> --- gcc-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #218 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-20 5:19 a.m., jvb at cyberscience dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
>
> --- Comment #217 from John Buddery ---
> Thanks very much fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #220 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-20 9:37 a.m., jvb at cyberscience dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
>
> --- Comment #219 from John Buddery ---
> Great, thanks - I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #222 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-20 10:02 a.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
>
> --- Comment #220 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #223 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-20 10:59 a.m., jvb at cyberscience dot com wrote:
> The simplest variant I have is:
>
> (define_insn "call_nogp"
> [(call (mem:DI (match_operand:DI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #224 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-20 10:59 a.m., jvb at cyberscience dot com wrote:
> but I need to work out how to vary the attribute, as you were right: scall
> maps
> to a "B" type attribute
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
It's after stage1. I'm bisecting.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-25 3:04 p.m., msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> In parallel, I wonder if there's something funny about
> snprintf on HP-UX. Does the snprintf call added in r12-930 d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100734
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-05-26 3:32 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> Attached a possible fix.
While the patch fixes boot, pr100619.c fails:
spawn /test/gnu/gcc/objdir64/gcc/xgcc -B/test/gnu/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #226 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
John, would you please post your full patch set for ia64-hpux? This will help
others.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691
--- Comment #56 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-01-09 6:20 a.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Maybe like this.
Actually, the change i sent was for
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/experimental/memory_resource/new_delete_resource.cc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108457
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-01-18 4:07 p.m., pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Basically C[TL]Z_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO macro does not always use its arguments
> so they don't get marked as used ...
Ye
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107396
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
I currently have 2.36.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-02-22 4:15 a.m., mathieu.malaterre at gmail dot com wrote:
> [...]
> libkcapi-1.3.1/apps/kcapi-rng.c:302: undefined reference to
> `kcapi_rng_generate'
> /usr/lib/gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-07-28 4:12 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you check trunk / the gcc 12 branch head?
Test fails in the same way with trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-07-29 8:50 a.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
>
> --- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106480
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-08-01 5:12 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106480
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
> W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-08-10 9:30 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> When I try with a cc1 cross I see
>
>> ./cc1 -quiet t.i -fpreprocessed -O2 -g -std=gnu11 -fgnu89-inline
>> -fm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-08-10 9:30 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> You could try if -fno-tree-pre reproduces it also before the change.
It doesn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-08-10 1:38 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
>
> --- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 202
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-08-10 9:30 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> hen I try with a cc1 cross I see
>
>> ./cc1 -quiet t.i -fpreprocessed -O2 -g -std=gnu11 -fgnu89-inline
>> -fm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639
--- Comment #11 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-12-29 12:26 p.m., fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> David, could you kindly test the attached patch, to see if it fixes things?
Added patch to my build tree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-12-29 12:26 p.m., fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89639
>
> --- Comment #10 from Francois-Xavier Coudert
> ---
> Cre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103890
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Is that what we want?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104363
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-02-03 12:13 p.m., danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> If I was to guess, I suspect the problem is with asm. Maybe a '\t'
> is needed before .symver on hppa. The hppa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103121
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-11-08 4:24 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> David, can you try adding
> -fno-tree-vectorize to the command line to see if that silences the
> diagnostic?
It does no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102162
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-01 4:14 p.m., arnd at linaro dot org wrote:
> Any idea what the difference is between the working version and your broken
> one?
Not really. My original test case worked a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102162
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-01 4:52 p.m., deller at gmx dot de wrote:
> I think the problem with your testcase is, that the compiler doesn't know the
> alignment of the parameter "p"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102162
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-01 4:52 p.m., deller at gmx dot de wrote:
> I think the problem with your testcase is, that the compiler doesn't know the
> alignment of the parameter "p"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102162
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-01 5:52 p.m., pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This is doing the correct thing in splitting up the load into bytes loads.
We only get correct code at -O0. STRICT_ALIGNMENT
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102162
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-01 6:35 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> We only get correct code at -O0.
Maybe cpymemsi expander is problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102162
--- Comment #21 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-01 7:21 p.m., pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102162
>
> --- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to dave
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102162
--- Comment #24 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-01 8:23 p.m., pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102162
>
> --- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski ---
> (In reply to Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40505
--- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
The ICE doesn't occur with g++-8, g++-9, g++-10 or g++-11, so I think this bug
can be closed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19336
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Appears to require implementation of __lshrti3, __ashlti3, __ashrti3, __multi3,
__udivti3, __umodti3, etc.
Various soft float routines are needed to perform conversions to/from ti mode.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102373
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-16 1:38 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> This looks wrong, comp_unit_die () should have DW_AT_producer at this point.
> gen_compile_unit_die should have added it...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102373
--- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-17 2:46 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Btw, it works with a cross from x86_64 to hppa64-hp-hpux11, but maybe I'm
> doing
> it wrong?
It's probably cau
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-09-22 9:14 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> what's MAX_BITSIZE_MODE_ANY_INT in insn-modes.h? (in the build directory)
> I think it should correspond to TImode and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102450
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
This occurs in stage3, so it's probably an optimization bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
/home/dave/gnu/gcc/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/to_chars/float128_c++23.cc
:77: void test(std::chars_format): Assertion 'ec4 == std::errc() && ptr4 ==
ptr1
' fai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
This is what the test prints:
6.47518e-4966 6e-4966
xxx.cc:79: void test(std::chars_format): Assertion 'ec4 == std::errc() && ptr4
== ptr1' failed.
ABORT instruction (core dumped)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2022-11-28 4:39 a.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107815
>
> --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Or better ye
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108235
--- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-01-04 7:54 p.m., redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108235
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
> Does that fix it?
I ju
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108297
--- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-01-05 2:23 p.m., ian at airs dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108297
>
> Ian Lance Taylor changed:
>
> W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108297
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2023-01-06 12:44 p.m., ian at airs dot com wrote:
> If LTO doesn't work HP/UX, do you have a simple test that the configure script
> could run to see whether it works?
Will investigate.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #242 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-07-15 11:01 a.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
>
> --- Comment #241 from The Written Word com> ---
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #251 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-07-15 2:48 p.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
>
> --- Comment #243 from The Written Word com> ---
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #259 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-07-19 5:00 p.m., me at larbob dot org wrote:
> I've now tried 11.1.0 almost exactly as The Written Word builds it, and still
> get:
>
> during GIMPLE pass: dce
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #271 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-07-21 2:32 a.m., me at larbob dot org wrote:
> Reading symbols from
> /home/larbob/Projects/build-gcc/builds/gcc-11.1.0/.o/./prev-gcc/cc1...BFD:
> /home/larbob/Projects/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577
--- Comment #275 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-07-21 12:55 p.m., me at larbob dot org wrote:
> Here's `disas $pc-256,$pc+256`'s output.
Maybe r47 contains garbage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101924
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2021-08-16 5:11 a.m., charlet at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can you confirm that these symbols are present in /usr/lib/libcl.a?
The symbols are in libcl.a. I'll test patch in ne
601 - 700 of 760 matches
Mail list logo
