http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47429
--- Comment #6 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-24 18:09:12 UTC ---
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 06:07:50PM +, navin.kumar at gmail dot com wrote:
> Instead of -Wfatal-errors that bombs on the first error, perhaps
> -Wfatal-er
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47458
--- Comment #1 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-25 15:08:48 UTC ---
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 03:05:32PM +, joel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> In file included from
> /users/joel/test-gcc/gcc-svn/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2.c:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47458
--- Comment #3 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-01-25 16:26:42 UTC ---
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 04:19:33PM +, joel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I can now build C/C++ for m32r-rtems*.
>
> m32c-rtems* builds ok without an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47703
--- Comment #4 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-02-11 19:06:39 UTC ---
FWIW, it was working a week ago.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47977
--- Comment #2 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-03-03 16:51:18 UTC ---
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 04:08:53PM +, m.lazzarotto at robox dot it wrote:
> lwz 9,8(1) # What's the purpose ?
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48236
--- Comment #2 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-03-22 14:18:32 UTC ---
Possibly an instance of PR 323.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48392
--- Comment #4 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-03-31 17:18:33 UTC ---
Or at least don't pass --host if you don't need it; configure will do a
fine job of figuring things out on its own.
Since you don't have the 3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #66 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-04 01:18:59 UTC ---
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:09:06AM +, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Kind Nodes By
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #68 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-04 13:13:01 UTC ---
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 01:01:27PM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > Do folks think it would be useful to include a breakdown by individual
> &g
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48474
--- Comment #1 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-05 22:50:53 UTC ---
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 10:42:03PM +, mrs at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> I have a target port, but with the update to 4.6.0 from 4.5.1, it now fails to
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48090
--- Comment #15 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-12 13:55:57 UTC ---
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:53:48PM +, ramana at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Still need to backport and test on the 4.6 branch. That is next.
Small procedural n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48825
--- Comment #3 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-04-29 17:02:42 UTC ---
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 04:54:34PM +, wkor97gy0eef1fr at i dot
mintemail.com wrote:
> i was using --disable-bootstrap to disable bootstrapping, but make st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48773
--- Comment #8 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-04 16:47:52 UTC ---
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:25:19PM +, mfortune at gmail dot com wrote:
> Can anyone speculate as to which passes consume REG_DEAD notes or is it a case
&
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #1 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 11:53:58 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:39:35AM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> int foo(int);
>
> template
> struct sfinae
> { };
>
> templat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #5 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 15:38:14 UTC ---
Thanks for checking. I'll attempt to the make the patch do something
intelligent on at least the original testcase and this:
> template struct S1 { type
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #6 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 16:10:51 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:08:05PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> template struct S1 { typedef char type; };
>
> template
> typen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #11 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 18:59:55 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 06:26:44PM +, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > The hackish way of doing this would be to notice during deduction that
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48934
--- Comment #14 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-09 19:20:49 UTC ---
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 07:16:49PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > foo.C:blahblah: error: no matching function for call to foo
> > foo.C:bl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48965
--- Comment #2 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-11 16:21:51 UTC ---
I see this too; it happens about 1 out of every 10 tries.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48965
--- Comment #3 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-11 16:25:24 UTC ---
Differences between the two .gkd dumps for a failing run:
--- pr45055.gkd2011-05-11 12:23:00.260424961 -0400
+++ pr45055.gk.gkd2011-05-11 12:23:00.370420369
--- Comment #2 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2010-09-03 13:34
---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] bootstrap failure on
sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu
configure says:
checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
checking whether the C compiler works... configure
--- Comment #4 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2010-09-05 01:38
---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] bootstrap failure on
sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu
On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 01:38:34PM -, mikpe at it dot uu dot se wrote:
> Can you show us the complete configure opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45950
--- Comment #3 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2010-10-09 03:34:20 UTC ---
John, could you please confirm whether
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-10/msg00761.html
fixes the build errors that you see?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46259
--- Comment #1 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2010-11-01 14:40:58 UTC ---
A backtrace and/or a reduced testcase would be helpful. I don't have a
copy of SPEC 2006.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46259
--- Comment #5 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2010-11-01 14:57:32 UTC ---
If I had to guess, one of these two hunks is probably responsible:
--- trunk/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c2010/10/31 01:58:12166101
+++ trunk/gcc/tree-vect-loop.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46836
--- Comment #2 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2010-12-07 15:49:15 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:31:22PM +, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> It's not entirely trivial, because e.g. std::tuple_size is declared in more
&g
--- Comment #2 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-05 17:45
---
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Failed to bootstrap
I do not see this compilation failure on my x86-64 linux machine.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44825
--- Comment #6 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2010-07-12 14:56
---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure for
tree-predcom.c
Why are the unordered removals "obviously" wrong? And why, if they're
"obviously" wrong, does this pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49156
--- Comment #1 from froydnj at codesourcery dot com 2011-05-25 19:36:46 UTC ---
On 05/25/2011 05:14 AM, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> template T declval();
>
> template
> struct S {
>
> template
> static U
29 matches
Mail list logo
