https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
It is interesting that some tests are reported failing
on the x86_64-pc-linux-gnu platform that I also use.
I really wonder what prevents these failures for me.
Could you say if there the outputs.exp test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
when you leave just one of those tests, you can
get somewhat more verbose output by using something like that:
make check-gcc-c RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-v/-Wl,-v outputs.exp"
you should see wher
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #10 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I tried to bootstrap with
GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.24
but still cannot reproduce the reported
failure ltrans0.ltrans_args / ltrans0.ltrans_args.0
I really wonder what makes the difference.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Aah, now I see (lto-wrapper.c):
if (parallel)
{
fprintf (mstream, "%s:\n\t@%s ", output_name, new_argv[0]);
for (j = 1; new_argv[j] != NULL; ++j)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
could someone try this for me?
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests
index 80d4b61..7cd755c 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp
+++ b/gcc/te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #15)
> I'm seeing a number of new testsuite failures on AIX after the
> collect2/testsuite change. Do you want a separate PR or use this as well?
>
> They are:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100106
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[10/11 Regression] ICE in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger ---
> so it is not possible to debug those functions
Aehm, i meant of course it is _now_ possible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Okay, after some debugging I see the problem.
Usually thunks are emitted from ymtab-thunks.cc:
cfun->is_thunk = 1;
insn_locations_init ();
set_curr_insn_location (DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 50778
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50778&action=edit
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Rainer,
I would be happy if you could give this patch a try.
Thanks
Bernd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100467
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100515
--- Comment #4 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 50795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50795&action=edit
Proposed patch
This is what I'm currently testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100515
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100515
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Okay, while the ICE is fixed, there is something odd in the test case:
foo._omp_fn.0:
.LVL0:
.LFB2:
.cfi_startproc
.file 1 "pr100515.c"
.loc 1 10 5 view -0
ret
.cfi_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101598
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116470
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #12)
> (thanks), but on Solaris/sparc there's
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline7.c scan-assembler DW_AT_ranges
>
> both with as and gas.
Hmm,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116462
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116462
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
201 - 222 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
