On 09.10.24 11:29, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024, Frank Scheiner wrote:
On 09.10.24 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024, Richard Biener wrote:
[...]
I'll push this for you.
I spoke too fast - something between you and me corrupts the patch
so it doesn't a
On 08.10.24 20:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 at 20:59, Frank Scheiner wrote:
[...]
The following patch adds a workaround for this on the libstdc++
testsuite side.
Signed-off-by: Frank Scheiner
Thanks, I'll push this.
N.B. there's no ChangeLog entry in the patch
On 09.10.24 10:26, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024, Frank Scheiner wrote:
With stage 3 of GCC 15 approaching, to save me some time by finally
dropping the non-LRA testcase from my cross builds of GCC and Linux and
as I had the time, I
From: René Rebe
This was tested by bootstrapping GCC natively on ia64-t2-linux-gnu and
running the testsuite (based on
236116068151bbc72aaaf53d0f223fe06f7e3bac):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-June/817268.html
For comparison, the same with just
236116068151bbc72aaaf53d0f22
From: René Rebe
The following un-deprecates ia64*-*-linux for GCC 15. Since we plan to
support this for some years to come.
gcc/
* config.gcc: Only list ia64*-*-(hpux|vms|elf) in the list of
obsoleted targets.
contrib/
* config-list.mk (LIST): no --enable-obsolete fo
With stage 3 of GCC 15 approaching, to save me some time by finally
dropping the non-LRA testcase from my cross builds of GCC and Linux and
as I had the time, I updated the patch set from René with the requested
changes and rebased it to 0ad2c76bea20dbeac753f10df6f9f86d142348d4.
Patch 1/2: Remove
On 08.10.24 21:08, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 20:02, Frank Scheiner wrote:
On 08.10.24 20:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 18:43, Frank Scheiner wrote:
This was tested by bootstrapping GCC natively on ia64-t2-linux-gnu and
running the testsuite (based
On 08.10.24 20:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2024 at 18:43, Frank Scheiner wrote:
This was tested by bootstrapping GCC natively on ia64-t2-linux-gnu and
running the testsuite (based on
236116068151bbc72aaaf53d0f223fe06f7e3bac):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024
This was tested by bootstrapping GCC natively on ia64-t2-linux-gnu and
running the testsuite (based on
236116068151bbc72aaaf53d0f223fe06f7e3bac):
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-June/817268.html
For comparison, the same with just
236116068151bbc72aaaf53d0f223fe06f7e3bac:
http
The following un-deprecates ia64*-*-linux for GCC 15. Since we plan to
support this for some years to come.
contrib/
* config-list.mk (LIST): no --enable-obsolete for ia64-linux.
gcc/
* config.gcc: Only list ia64*-*-(hpux|vms|elf) in the list of
obsoleted targets.
Sign
With stage 3 of GCC 15 approaching, to save me some time by finally
dropping the non-LRA testcase from my cross builds of GCC and Linux and
as I had the time, I updated the patch set from René with the requested
changes and rebased it to 0ad2c76bea20dbeac753f10df6f9f86d142348d4.
Patch 1/2: Remove
side.
Signed-off-by: Frank Scheiner
---
v2: Fix typo in title.
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc
b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc
index 9b0ffcb50b2..b45aefe1ccf 100644
--- a/libstdc
On 01.10.24 18:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 16:53, Frank Scheiner wrote:
Though I don't understand why. From the error message it sounds like 'u'
was replaced with '(' before the __ctx macro could do its job.
But Joseph also wrote that it
Hi Jonathan, Joseph,
On 01.10.24 15:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 14:05, Frank Scheiner wrote:
On 01.10.24 11:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sept 2024 at 18:26, Frank Scheiner wrote:
It looks like the glibc header also defines "bits" without using the
impl
Hi Jonathan,
On 01.10.24 11:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sept 2024 at 18:26, Frank Scheiner wrote:
The following patch adds a workaround for this on the libstdc++
testsuite side.
Thanks for the patch. Please CC libstd...@gcc.gnu.org for all
libstdc++ patches, as per https
side.
Signed-off-by: Frank Scheiner
---
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc
b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro/names.cc
index 9b0ffcb50b2..b45aefe1ccf 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_intro
On 17.06.24 20:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 19:03, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Both, ideally. The libstdc++ test should definitely be fixed because
it fails with released versions of glibc already in the wild. But
glibc should also be
On 14.06.24 14:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 at 12:07, Frank Scheiner wrote:
...point to two headers which are part of glibc 2.39 (w/ia64 support
re-added):
* /usr/include/bits/sigcontext.h:32-38:
```
32 struct __ia64_fpreg
33 {
34 union
35 {
36 unsigned
Dear Jonathan, Jeff,
On 13.06.24 12:33, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 22:00, Frank Scheiner wrote:
Ok, I posted the results as created by contrib/test_summary now:
1. non-LRA version on [1]
2. LRA version on [2]
[1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-June
Hi Jonathan, Richard,
On 12.06.24 20:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12/06/24 16:09 +0200, Frank Scheiner wrote:
Dear Richard,
On 12.06.24 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
[...]
I can find two gcc-testresult postings, one appearantly with LRA
and one without? Both from May:
https
Dear Richard,
On 12.06.24 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
[...]
I can find two gcc-testresult postings, one appearantly with LRA
and one without? Both from May:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-May/816422.html
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-May/816346.h
Hi all,
On 12.06.24 15:19, René Rebe wrote:
On Jun 12, 2024, at 15:00, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, René Rebe wrote:
On Jun 12, 2024, at 13:01, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024, Rene Rebe wrote:
not sure how you exactly did this though? I've never tried
testing of a
22 matches
Mail list logo
