From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7352 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 16:03:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7314 invoked by uid 48); 24 Oct 2014 16:03:44 -0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/60304] Including disables -Wconversion-null Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:20:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01960.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D60304 --- Comment #22 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #21) > (In reply to Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez from comment #19)=20 > > This is exactly what G++'s stdbool.h is doing with -std=3Dgnu++98 and > > -std=3Dc++98. >=20 > is a "header" which is C++ standardese for a standard library > header. The rule only applies to user code, not std::lib headers. In your > testcase sys.h is OK but nonsys.h is not. We can drop the nonsys.h case. It is only testing that the no system_headers case also works (according to your other comment, it will be valid if no system_header is included). My point is that the fix cannot be only limited to tweaking stdbool.h, as l= ong as any C++ mode still defines false as a macro. >>From gcc-bugs-return-464940-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Oct 24 16:20:49 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25488 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 16:20:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25420 invoked by uid 48); 24 Oct 2014 16:20:44 -0000 From: "evstupac at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/63534] [5 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86_64/i686-linux Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:28:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: evstupac at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01961.txt.bz2 Content-length: 785 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D63534 --- Comment #43 from Stupachenko Evgeny --- (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #42) > > --- Comment #41 from Stupachenko Evgeny --- > > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #40) > [...] > > That should be not "EBX enablig" issue as pointed in comments 17 and 35. > > I'm testing bootstrap like in comment 34 and it passed. >=20 > Adding --with-arch=3Dcore2 --with-cpu=3Dcore2 didn't make any difference. >=20 > Rainer The core thing in comment 34 is "patch in comment 33 applied on top of r216304". Most likely after r216304 someone broke darwin bootstrap again. So to test my changes I use revision r216304 with patch from commnet 33. >>From gcc-bugs-return-464941-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Oct 24 16:28:22 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32573 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 16:28:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32514 invoked by uid 48); 24 Oct 2014 16:28:18 -0000 From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/63534] [5 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86_64/i686-linux Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:30:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01962.txt.bz2 Content-length: 1177 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D63534 --- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #43) > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #42) > > > --- Comment #41 from Stupachenko Evgeny -= -- > > > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #40) > > [...] > > > That should be not "EBX enablig" issue as pointed in comments 17 and = 35. > > > I'm testing bootstrap like in comment 34 and it passed. > >=20 > > Adding --with-arch=3Dcore2 --with-cpu=3Dcore2 didn't make any differenc= e. > >=20 > > Rainer >=20 > The core thing in comment 34 is "patch in comment 33 applied on top of > r216304". >=20 > Most likely after r216304 someone broke darwin bootstrap again. > So to test my changes I use revision r216304 with patch from commnet 33. there were at one point this week 4 concurrent bootstrap breaks on dariwn. this PR. the ipa-icf series requiring non-weak aliases and the iconv dep on libcpp. I don't know how many of those have been fixed so far - but I suspect that = not all have. Unfortunately, not able to be more explict right now. >>From gcc-bugs-return-464943-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Oct 24 16:31:14 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7430 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2014 16:31:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7381 invoked by uid 55); 24 Oct 2014 16:31:10 -0000 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/63534] [5 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86_64/i686-linux Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 16:31:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg01964.txt.bz2 Content-length: 824 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63534 --- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #44 from Iain Sandoe --- > (In reply to Stupachenko Evgeny from comment #43) [...] > there were at one point this week 4 concurrent bootstrap breaks on dariwn. > > this PR. > the ipa-icf series > requiring non-weak aliases > and the iconv dep on libcpp. > > I don't know how many of those have been fixed so far - but I suspect that not > all have. Unfortunately, not able to be more explict right now. Thanks for the update. As I said, I'd completely lost track of what's going on here. I'm now testing the rev before Evgeny's patch to check if that bootstraps on 10.10. If not, we may have yet another issue here. Rainer