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
31 matches
Mail list logo
