--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-22 15:45 ---
Subject: Re: New: add a debug_privnames section
On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:58:59PM -, tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> In response to a request like "break function", gdb will currently
> search all objfile
--- Comment #9 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-15 20:58 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 regression] invalid register in debug info
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:35:59AM -, rth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Well, the ideal fix is to make use of the dwarf3 DW_OP_call_frame_cfa
> direct
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-16 20:36 ---
Subject: Re: make: *** No rule to make target `bubblestrap'. Stop.
> A "make" from a toplevel is equivalent to the old "make bubblestrap" or "make
> -C bubblestrap". In practice "make" just does the right thing, com
--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-06 16:35 ---
Subject: Re: New: selective non-bootstrap build broken
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 04:27:16PM -, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Building a non-bootstrap native gcc with selected target libraries
> doesn't wo
--- Comment #7 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-25 13:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] MIssing debug info at -O0 for a local variable
in a C++ constructor
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:14:46PM -, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> If this is fixed on mainline, the fix
--- Comment #10 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-26 03:52 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] MIssing debug info at -O0 for a local variable
in a C++ constructor
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 05:08:18PM -, joern dot rennecke at st dot com
wrote:
> When I compile the testcase (using
--- Comment #14 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-27 20:12 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] MIssing debug info at -O0 for a local
variable in a C++ constructor
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:29:38PM -, amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The problem appeared from r96653
--- Comment #20 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-17 02:40 ---
Subject: Re: gcj should generate N_MAIN stab or DW_AT_entry_point dwarf2
debug info
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:17:32PM -, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Someone should make gdb understand the DW_AT_calli
--- Comment #6 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-17 21:24 ---
Subject: Re: [regression] --with-sysroot=foobar wrong handled
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:23:51PM -, mtrudel at gmx dot ch wrote:
> However, I really think this should not be required since it worked with gcc
> 4.2
--- Comment #1 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-17 13:26 ---
Subject: Re: New: Overflow warning causes
GDB -Werror build failure
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:21:36PM -, drow at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> GCC HEAD now warns about this testcase for mips-linux, reduce
--- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-22 18:49 ---
Subject: Re: postfix increment semantics implemented
incorrectly
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:18:09PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 13.5.1/1 explains that:
> @x is the same as operator@(x) or x.
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-06 13:21 ---
Subject: Re: New: [Regression] gdb has symbol table issues
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 11:13:11PM -, scovich at gmail dot com wrote:
> When debugging code produced by g++-4.3.0-20070716 the debugger regularly
> outpu
--- Comment #10 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-08 18:51 ---
Subject: Re: gcc allows negatively-sized arrays
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:34:47PM -, sdyoung at miranda dot org wrote:
> main() {
> int y = 0xFFFD;
> int x[y];
> }
This is roughly equivalent to malloc (
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-08 20:45 ---
Subject: Re: Not able to get past this error
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 08:01:59PM -, maybe_guess_who_is at yahoo dot com
wrote:
> when to each sub dirctory and ran ./configure then
> went to main dirctory ran ./co
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-03-10 03:45 ---
Subject: Re: g++ rejects valid code with 'is inaccessible' error
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:25:03AM -, matthew dot whitney at gmail dot com
wrote:
> Now it compiles fine. Before this is closed a
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-03-13 03:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] GCC produces wrong dwarf2 output that breaks
gdb
Hmm, I can't reproduce the error using mainline for i386-linux, and
several versions of GDB. Could you attach readelf -wi o
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-04-07 14:39 ---
Subject: Re: Another debug info emitting bug
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:31:35PM -, drow at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I have a GDB patch that will avoid the internal error. I'll dig it up.
See
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-04-08 19:33 ---
Subject: Re: bad debug info for static nested struct with virtual function
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 01:35:59PM -, kjd at duda dot org wrote:
> I get identical behavior from both GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.1p
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-04-12 00:06 ---
Subject: Re: Top-level gcc configure/makefile does not handle --with-sysroot
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 08:39:53PM -, prothonotar at tarnation dot dyndns
dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comment
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-04-13 17:50 ---
Subject: Re: New: building mips/64 cross compiler on x86 produces incorrect
assembler code for _divdi3 with -fnon-call-exceptions
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 05:22:07AM -, herbert at 13thfloor dot at wrote
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-04-13 17:51 ---
Subject: Re: building mips/64 cross compiler on x86 produces incorrect
assembler code for _divdi3 with -fnon-call-exceptions
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 09:46:26AM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote
--- Comment #8 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-15 19:01 ---
Subject: Re: g++ should emit different debug info for
variable's type
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 08:48:32PM -, tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Jan> Tom, could you elaborate why x1 and x2 should be prin
--- Comment #9 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-23 17:43 ---
Subject: Re: References to original ${prefix} paths in
relocated toolchain and /lib and /usr/lib search paths appear in
cross toolchain.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 08:03:34AM -, kkylheku at gmail dot
--- Comment #10 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-23 17:45 ---
Subject: Re: References to original ${prefix} paths in
relocated toolchain and /lib and /usr/lib search paths appear in
cross toolchain.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 08:54:56AM -, kkylheku at gmail dot
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-23 16:07 ---
Subject: Re: GCC does not emit debug info for a called
function
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 06:07:01PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Oh because constant folding of asin, we remove the reference to
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-02 14:48 ---
Subject: Re: no debug information for loop counters
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 04:07:01AM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> On the mainline, we have ivtmp.33 going from 1 to 101 so it does not equal the
> sa
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-10 16:12 ---
Subject: Re: error trying to exec 'ecj1' - also -
SuppressWarnings cannot be resolved to a type
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:13:42PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> This is not a bug, please read:
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-09-29 18:58 ---
Subject: Re: Unconditional warning when using -combine
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:46:20PM -, dann at godzilla dot ics dot uci dot
edu wrote:
> > So this about the following:
> > int f(
--- Comment #3 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-22 21:14 ---
Subject: Re: vld4 and vst4 intrinsics are not handled
correctly
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:08:18AM -, rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Likely because of the union in
>
> __extension__ static __inline void
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2005-08-08 15:48 ---
Subject: Re: gcj should generate N_MAIN stab or DW_AT_entry_point dwarf2
debug info
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 03:23:22PM -, aph at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I think we have deadlock here! It's eas
30 matches
Mail list logo
