--- Comment #18 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-29 22:19 ---
As I am clearly rejected by the GCC insiders in my attempts to help make the C
compiler more attuned to the spirit of the C99 committee; I am now forced to
alert the user community of what is happening with a near
--- Comment #20 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-29 23:53 ---
Ping
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #23 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-30 00:18 ---
Segher was mentioned twice. First, according to my research he is not a kernel
maintainer as implied in comments 4 and 9. He is actuallu Segher Boessenkool, a
GCC maintainer, inactive since 2005-02-01, his latest
--- Comment #24 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-30 00:22 ---
Mr. Torvalds has already answered in comment 1
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
: bootstrap
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: powerpc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26175
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i686-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26781
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-21 14:51 ---
Created an attachment (id=11084)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11084&action=view)
ICE combined output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26781
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-21 15:02 ---
The two "if (tree_code(genop) == VALUE_HANDLE) at lines 2190 of tree-ssa-pre.c
look suspicious to me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26781
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-21 18:26 ---
While I have your attention I would propose this more comprehensive patch:
--- tree-ssa-pre.org.c 2006-03-21 12:55:12.0 -0500
+++ tree-ssa-pre.c 2006-03-21 13:11:36.0 -0500
@@ -2192,11
: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-slackware-linux
GCC host triplet: i686-slackware-linux
GCC target triplet: i686-slackware-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26833
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-23 21:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=11108)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11108&action=view)
complete case
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26833
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-23 22:35 ---
If you are referring to 26781 as opposed to the present 26833; yes, the first
was from linuxkernel-2.6.16 and the present is from yasm-0.4.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26833
--- Comment #15 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-24 14:30 ---
re this PR 26806 and PR 26833 (judged equivalent) the yasm--0.4.0 referred to
in PR 26833 compiled OK with the temporary fix and passed an extensive battery
of tests included in yasm-0.4.0. Documentation issues
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: i686-slackware-linux
GCC host triplet: i686-slackware-linux
GCC target triplet: i686-slackware-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26859
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-25 00:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=8)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8&action=view)
complete test case (command, console out, *.e)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26859
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-27 15:17 ---
The fairly extensive changes submitted by Mr Sebastian Pop solved the PR 26859
as originally reported by myself.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26859
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-28 14:45 ---
As no further comments are forthcoming I am taking the liberty to mark this PR
as resolved.
--
malitzke at metronets dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-28 17:07 ---
You are correct. At least as far as the second batch from S.Pop (dated
2006-03-27)
goes. As I did not keep my gcc-4.2.0 binaries relative to the first batch from
S.Pop (dated 2006-03-26) I can not reproduce the non
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-29 22:24 ---
Maybe I should keep my mouth shut.
However, gcc-4.2.0 2006329 again compiles pari-2.1.7 OK. 2nd However,
pari-2.2.12.beta uses a different approch, which does not give any problems
with various gcc-4.2.0. At least
verity: major
Priority: P3
Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: powerpc-slackware-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: powerpc-slackware-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: powerpc-slackw
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-30 00:57 ---
Maybe it is helpful to see how genpeep was built"
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-slackware-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.1.1/configure --prefix=/usr
--with-slibdir=/usr/lib/gcc/4.1.1 --infodir
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-30 01:07 ---
Using an older version of gcc-4.2.0 gave essentially the same error message as
in the original description.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26935
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-30 03:48 ---
I just did an svn update and there is an rs6000/constraints.md updated. So, let
us keep our fingers crossed while I do new bootstrap.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26935
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-03-30 03:54 ---
Yep, it just passed that stage and seems to be well on its way. Thanks, you do
the paperwork.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26935
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: other
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: malitzke at metronets dot com
GCC build triplet: *-*-*
GCC host triplet: *-*-*
GCC target triplet: *-*-*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
gt; for instructions.
--
Summary: ICE using phase 2 bootstrap output cc1 on tree.c
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot or
--- Comment #1 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 18:31 ---
Created an attachment (id=12919)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12919&action=view)
Detailed out using different optimization levels
I also have similar output using Phase 1 cc1 (
--- Comment #2 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 18:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=12920)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12920&action=view)
Standard preprocessed file
This file was created using the xgcc resulting from phase 2. I have anoth
--- Comment #3 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 18:52 ---
Prior to patclevel 12900 (about 12880) bootstrap failed even with O1 with
segment error.
For those dismissive folks who either say "It works for me" or claim that it is
the submitters harware fault I can
--- Comment #4 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-18 23:40 ---
Well , the mistery continues.
First when I referred to patchlevels I left out a 0 (zero); 12900 should read
120900.
Second I repeated the bootstrap because a number of patches from Daniel Berlin
looked promising to
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-19 00:20 ---
Mr Pinski
I do not appreciate your comment. My comment 3 was really addressed to people
like you who want to garner points as beiong the big killers of problem reports
by using cheap tactics. With four processors
101 - 131 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
