On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 18:12 +, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 06:06 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dominique d'Humières
> > wrote:
> >> // { dg-do run { target { ! { *-*-darwin* powerpc-ibm-aix* } } } }
> >
> > A comment to hint that this has something to do with
On 01/21/2016 06:06 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>> // { dg-do run { target { ! { *-*-darwin* powerpc-ibm-aix* } } } }
>
> A comment to hint that this has something to do with weak undefined would be
> nice.
>
Or come up with some new "dg-req
On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> // { dg-do run { target { ! { *-*-darwin* powerpc-ibm-aix* } } } }
A comment to hint that this has something to do with weak undefined would be
nice.
> Le 21 janv. 2016 à 18:15, Dominique d'Humières a écrit :
>
>
>> Le 21 janv. 2016 à 16:25, Torvald Riegel a écrit :
>>
>> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 11:00 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>>> Torvald,
>>>
>>> Now that I can bootstrap on darwin, I have found the following failure for
>>> libit
> Le 21 janv. 2016 à 16:25, Torvald Riegel a écrit :
>
> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 11:00 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>> Torvald,
>>
>> Now that I can bootstrap on darwin, I have found the following failure for
>> libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C
>>
>> /opt/gcc/work/libitm/testsuite/libitm.c+
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 11:00 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Torvald,
>
> Now that I can bootstrap on darwin, I have found the following failure for
> libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C
>
> /opt/gcc/work/libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C:50:2: error:
> unsafe function call 'std::u
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 11:00 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Torvald,
>
> Now that I can bootstrap on darwin, I have found the following failure for
> libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C
>
> /opt/gcc/work/libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C:50:2: error:
> unsafe function call 'std::u
Torvald,
Now that I can bootstrap on darwin, I have found the following failure for
libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C
/opt/gcc/work/libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C:50:2: error:
unsafe function call 'std::underflow_error::underflow_error(const string&)'
within atomic transaction
On 19/01/16 20:10 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 10:57 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Addressed these, fixed a problem with using GLIBCXX_WEAK_DEFINITION
> (which is only set on Darwin despite the generic-sounding name -- so
> just use __attribute__((weak)) directly), a
On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 10:57 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> > Addressed these, fixed a problem with using GLIBCXX_WEAK_DEFINITION
> > (which is only set on Darwin despite the generic-sounding name -- so
> > just use __attribute__((weak)) directly), and also updated
> > testsuite_abi.cc so that
On 18/01/16 17:30 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 14:54 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 18:30 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 15:38 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan
On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 14:54 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 18:30 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 15:38 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote
On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 18:30 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 15:38 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 15:38 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> >> stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is
On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 09:21:45PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> The attached patch works around this by always definining stubs for the
> libitm functions, yet declaring them weak at the same time. If
This doesn't look like a good idea. The dynamic linker doesn't make
difference between weak a
On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 15:38 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is stage2 configure
> >> fails due to missing ITM_xxx symbols wh
On 16 January 2016 at 22:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Don't you need to update baseline_symbols.txt?
That usually happens when we get near the release, not every time we
add symbols.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> The attached patch makes some exceptions transaction-safe, as require by
> the Transactional Memory TS. I believe I addressed all feedback for the
> previous version of this patch (in particular, there are now more safety
> checks for precon
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is stage2 configure
>> fails due to missing ITM_xxx symbols when configure tries to compile
>> and run conftest programs.
>
> O
Torvald,
The error is a link failure in stage2 configure due to the missing
_ITM_xxx and related symbols. I don't have the failed build any more.
Maybe Jonathan can reply with the specific failures.
There is an AIX system in the GNU Compile Farm: gcc111.
- David
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:12 PM
On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 14:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is stage2 configure
> > fails due to missing ITM_xxx symbols when configure tries to compile
> > and run conftest programs.
>
On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 10:57 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> > Addressed these, fixed a problem with using GLIBCXX_WEAK_DEFINITION
> > (which is only set on Darwin despite the generic-sounding name -- so
> > just use __attribute__((weak)) directly), and also updated
> > testsuite_abi.cc so that
On 16/01/16 13:41 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/01/16 14:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is stage2 configure
fails due to missing ITM_xxx symbols when configure tries to compile
On 16/01/16 14:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is stage2 configure
fails due to missing ITM_xxx symbols when configure tries to compile
and run conftest programs.
On x86_64-linux, the
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is stage2 configure
> fails due to missing ITM_xxx symbols when configure tries to compile
> and run conftest programs.
On x86_64-linux, the _ITM_xxx symbols are undef weak ones and th
stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is stage2 configure
fails due to missing ITM_xxx symbols when configure tries to compile
and run conftest programs.
Thanks, David
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> What are the errors?
>
> I can build libstdc++ on gcc111.
>
What are the errors?
I can build libstdc++ on gcc111.
Does this patch help?
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/cow-stdexcept.cc
b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/cow-stdexcept.cc
index afc3f6c..8a1b65a 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/cow-stdexcept.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/cow-stdexcept.cc
This patch broke bootstrap on AIX. Not all targets support TM. This
patch makes libstdc++ unconditionally refer to TM symbols.
Please fix.
- David
> Addressed these, fixed a problem with using GLIBCXX_WEAK_DEFINITION
> (which is only set on Darwin despite the generic-sounding name -- so
> just use __attribute__((weak)) directly), and also updated
> testsuite_abi.cc so that it knows about CXXABI_1.3.10.
>
> Approved by Jonathan Wakely. Commit
On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 17:58 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 07/01/16 17:47 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >The attached patch makes some exceptions transaction-safe, as require by
> >the Transactional Memory TS. I believe I addressed all feedback for the
> >previous version of this patch (in pa
On 07/01/16 17:47 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
The attached patch makes some exceptions transaction-safe, as require by
the Transactional Memory TS. I believe I addressed all feedback for the
previous version of this patch (in particular, there are now more safety
checks for preconditions for th
The attached patch makes some exceptions transaction-safe, as require by
the Transactional Memory TS. I believe I addressed all feedback for the
previous version of this patch (in particular, there are now more safety
checks for preconditions for this implementation (eg, that the new
allocator is
32 matches
Mail list logo
