* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
@ 2012-09-24 19:05 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-24 19:15 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-24 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2012-09-24
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
Component|ada |bootstrap
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
Summary|[4.8 regression] |[4.8 regression] violation
|a-ioexce.ads violation of |of implicit restriction
|implicit restriction |"No_Elaboration_Code" on
|"No_Elaboration_Code" |a-ioexce.ads
|breaks Ada bootstrap on |
|sparc64-linux |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-24 19:04:29 UTC ---
Yep. This is stage 3 so the stage 2 compiler is very likely miscompiled.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
2012-09-24 19:05 ` [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-24 19:15 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-26 11:44 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-24 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot |
|gnu.org |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ebotcazou at gcc dot
|gnu.org |gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-24 19:15:32 UTC ---
Investigating.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
2012-09-24 19:05 ` [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-24 19:15 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-26 11:44 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-26 12:56 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-26 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-26 11:43:40 UTC ---
It's r191493, the transformation is applied to a %sp-based load, which is
invalid since the frame is destroyed, and the resulting offset is bogus:
In .split4:
(insn 52 41 43 4 (set (reg:SI 1 %g1 [orig:137 D.6097+8 ] [137])
(mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
(const_int 80 [0x50])) [23 D.6097+8 S4 A64]))
/home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/ada/restrict.adb:1067 61 {*movsi_insn}
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
(const_int 80 [0x50])) [23 D.6097+8 S4 A64])
(nil)))
[...]
(note 60 43 61 4 NOTE_INSN_EPILOGUE_BEG)
(insn 61 60 62 4 (set (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
(minus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
(const_int -88 [0xffffffffffffffa8])))
/home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/ada/restrict.adb:1068 183 {subsi3}
In .sched2:
(insn 61 64 52 4 (set (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
(minus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
(const_int -88 [0xffffffffffffffa8])))
/home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/ada/restrict.adb:1068 183 {subsi3}
(nil))
(insn 52 61 43 4 (set (reg:SI 1 %g1 [orig:137 D.6097+8 ] [137])
(mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
(const_int 168 [0xa8])) [23 D.6097+8 S4 A64]))
/home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/ada/restrict.adb:1067 61 {*movsi_insn}
(expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
(const_int 80 [0x50])) [23 D.6097+8 S4 A64])
(nil)))
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-26 11:44 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-26 12:56 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-26 13:19 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-26 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target|sparc64-linux |sparc64-linux,
| |sparc*-*-solaris2*
CC| |ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth <ro at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-26 12:56:37 UTC ---
Same on Solaris/SPARC.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-26 12:56 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-26 13:19 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-26 13:37 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-26 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-26 13:18:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> It's r191493, the transformation is applied to a %sp-based load, which is
> invalid since the frame is destroyed, and the resulting offset is bogus:
>
> In .split4:
>
> (insn 52 41 43 4 (set (reg:SI 1 %g1 [orig:137 D.6097+8 ] [137])
> (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
> (const_int 80 [0x50])) [23 D.6097+8 S4 A64]))
> /home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/ada/restrict.adb:1067 61 {*movsi_insn}
> (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
> (const_int 80 [0x50])) [23 D.6097+8 S4 A64])
> (nil)))
>
> [...]
> (note 60 43 61 4 NOTE_INSN_EPILOGUE_BEG)
>
> (insn 61 60 62 4 (set (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
> (minus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
> (const_int -88 [0xffffffffffffffa8])))
> /home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/ada/restrict.adb:1068 183 {subsi3}
>
> In .sched2:
>
> (insn 61 64 52 4 (set (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
> (minus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
> (const_int -88 [0xffffffffffffffa8])))
> /home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/ada/restrict.adb:1068 183 {subsi3}
> (nil))
>
> (insn 52 61 43 4 (set (reg:SI 1 %g1 [orig:137 D.6097+8 ] [137])
> (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
> (const_int 168 [0xa8])) [23 D.6097+8 S4 A64]))
> /home/eric/svn/gcc/gcc/ada/restrict.adb:1067 61 {*movsi_insn}
> (expr_list:REG_EQUIV (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 14 %sp)
> (const_int 80 [0x50])) [23 D.6097+8 S4 A64])
> (nil)))
I admit I don't quite see yet why this would be invalid (assuming that the
stack grows from high address to low ones). What do you mean by "the frame is
destroyed", is there something special about sparc?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-26 13:19 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-26 13:37 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-26 13:50 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-26 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-26 13:37:25 UTC ---
> I admit I don't quite see yet why this would be invalid (assuming that the
> stack grows from high address to low ones). What do you mean by "the frame is
> destroyed", is there something special about sparc?
We go from
g1 <- [sp+80]
sp <- sp + 88
to
sp <- sp + 88
g1 <- [sp + 168]
so there is a double issue: the frame is destroyed after the %sp bump and the
new offset is bogus (it should be -8). And the REG_EQUIV note isn't updated.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-26 13:37 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-26 13:50 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-26 14:03 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-26 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-26 13:50:06 UTC ---
Oh, I missed that it was a MINUS rtx. This is noncanonical RTL, it should be
(plus (sp) (negated constant)).
Does the bug persist if you fix the sparc port in this way?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-26 13:50 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-26 14:03 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-26 14:14 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-26 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-26 14:03:24 UTC ---
> Oh, I missed that it was a MINUS rtx. This is noncanonical RTL, it should be
> (plus (sp) (negated constant)).
>
> Does the bug persist if you fix the sparc port in this way?
I'm not sure we want to change the SPARC port (this form is used because of the
larger offset range). In any case, non-canonical RTL shouldn't result in wrong
code, only in missed optimization.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-26 14:03 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-26 14:14 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-27 7:57 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-26 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-26 14:13:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 28283
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28283
Candidate patch.
The offset range should not be an issue with the right constraints etc.; the
port really ought to be changed.
In the meantime, please try this patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-26 14:14 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-27 7:57 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2012-09-27 13:28 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2012-09-27 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #10 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2012-09-27 07:57:04 UTC ---
> --- Comment #9 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-26
> 14:13:31 UTC ---
> Created attachment 28283
> --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28283
> Candidate patch.
[...]
> In the meantime, please try this patch.
Unfortunately, this doesn't help: same failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.1[01].
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-27 7:57 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2012-09-27 13:28 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-27 16:00 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-27 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-27 13:28:12 UTC ---
Hmm, strange. What if you just make a change like this:
@@ -4600,8 +4600,7 @@ parse_add_or_inc (struct mem_inc_info *m
if (!REG_P (SET_DEST (pat)))
return false;
- if (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (pat)) != PLUS
- && GET_CODE (SET_SRC (pat)) != MINUS)
+ if (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (pat)) != PLUS)
return false;
mii->inc_insn = insn;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-27 13:28 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-27 16:00 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
2012-09-28 7:56 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE @ 2012-09-27 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> 2012-09-27 15:59:38 UTC ---
> --- Comment #11 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-27 13:28:12 UTC ---
> Hmm, strange. What if you just make a change like this:
>
> @@ -4600,8 +4600,7 @@ parse_add_or_inc (struct mem_inc_info *m
> if (!REG_P (SET_DEST (pat)))
> return false;
>
> - if (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (pat)) != PLUS
> - && GET_CODE (SET_SRC (pat)) != MINUS)
> + if (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (pat)) != PLUS)
> return false;
>
> mii->inc_insn = insn;
With that change, a sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap completed. make
check is still running.
Rainer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-27 16:00 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
@ 2012-09-28 7:56 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-28 20:33 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-28 20:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-28 7:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-28 07:55:19 UTC ---
> The offset range should not be an issue with the right constraints etc.; the
> port really ought to be changed.
Yes, in fact we already have the machinery to do it.
> In the meantime, please try this patch.
Thanks, it works for me, modulo the obvious thinko (mii->inc_constant --> cst).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-28 7:56 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-28 20:33 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-28 20:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: bernds at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-28 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Schmidt <bernds at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-28 20:33:00 UTC ---
Author: bernds
Date: Fri Sep 28 20:32:55 2012
New Revision: 191838
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191838
Log:
PR bootstrap/54688
* sched-deps.c (parse_add_or_inc): Remove MINUS handling. Take
STACK_GROWS_DOWNWARD into account.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/sched-deps.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/54688] [4.8 regression] violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" on a-ioexce.ads
2012-09-24 7:44 [Bug ada/54688] New: [4.8 regression] a-ioexce.ads violation of implicit restriction "No_Elaboration_Code" breaks Ada bootstrap on sparc64-linux mikpe at it dot uu.se
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2012-09-28 20:33 ` bernds at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-09-28 20:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-09-28 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54688
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-28 20:46:36 UTC ---
.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread