* [Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors
[not found] <bug-65988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2015-05-03 8:16 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-08 14:56 ` jcea at jcea dot es
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-05-03 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes, there is (was?) a bug in ISL where they are missing extern "C" in
isl/val_gmp.h, which was hacked around in a buggy way in
graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c by including that file inside extern "C". I think
it should include system.h (or at least gmp.h) before doing that hack, to
minimize the number of headers recursively affected.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors
[not found] <bug-65988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2015-05-03 8:16 ` [Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-06-08 14:56 ` jcea at jcea dot es
2015-06-08 15:12 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jcea at jcea dot es @ 2015-06-08 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
--- Comment #3 from Jesus Cea <jcea at jcea dot es> ---
Ping...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors
[not found] <bug-65988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2015-05-03 8:16 ` [Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-08 14:56 ` jcea at jcea dot es
@ 2015-06-08 15:12 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-08 16:06 ` jcea at jcea dot es
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-06-08 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
You could try building without ISL.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors
[not found] <bug-65988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-08 15:12 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-06-08 16:06 ` jcea at jcea dot es
2015-07-02 10:04 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jcea at jcea dot es @ 2015-06-08 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
--- Comment #5 from Jesus Cea <jcea at jcea dot es> ---
Could you possibly tell me how to do it and what the impact would be?
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors
[not found] <bug-65988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-06-08 16:06 ` jcea at jcea dot es
@ 2015-07-02 10:04 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-08 2:25 ` jcea at jcea dot es
2015-07-08 7:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-02 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jesus Cea from comment #5)
> Could you possibly tell me how to do it and what the impact would be?
I think it should just work if you follow the instructions here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/InstallingGCC but using: GRAPHITE_LOOP_OPT=no
>From gcc-bugs-return-491246-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Jul 02 10:19:39 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-491246-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 88746 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2015 10:19:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 88712 invoked by uid 48); 2 Jul 2015 10:19:35 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug testsuite/65944] [5/6 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr65276: undefined reference to std2::exception::~exception()
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:19:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-65944-4-wP0VEgKQKk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65944-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65944-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: 2015-07/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2
Content-length: 304
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65944
--- Comment #7 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #6)
> Since this fix, I am observing this regression on arm* targets:
Please see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg01240.html
>From gcc-bugs-return-491247-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Jul 02 10:31:19 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-491247-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 50497 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2015 10:31:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 50462 invoked by uid 48); 2 Jul 2015 10:31:15 -0000
From: "amker at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/66612] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/20050830-1.c scan-assembler bdn
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:31:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amker at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-66612-4-D7disncvRW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66612-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66612-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: 2015-07/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2
Content-length: 332
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idf612
--- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> stwx 10,8,9 -> *(int*)(r8+r9)=r10
I am wondering how should we handle this failure. Create a new doloop test and
change this one testing the optimization gcc does now?
Thanks,
bin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors
[not found] <bug-65988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-02 10:04 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-07-08 2:25 ` jcea at jcea dot es
2015-07-08 7:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jcea at jcea dot es @ 2015-07-08 2:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
Jesus Cea <jcea at jcea dot es> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #7 from Jesus Cea <jcea at jcea dot es> ---
I tried to compile GCC 4.9.3 and I was unable, too. Different error but same
result. I recompiled GCC 4.9.2 and it worked.
I messed with different versions of "CLOOG" and "ISL" and I got GCC 4.9.3 and
5.1.0 working correctly.
I am currently using GCC 5.1.0 and compiling with it seems to work well. I
compiled Python, bind, etc., and it works.
I close this but report, but I would love future GCC releases to document what
CLOOG and ISL versions they require.
Thanks for your time.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/65988] Trying to compile GCC 5.1 in my (customized) Solaris 10/x86-64 fails with GMP errors
[not found] <bug-65988-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-07-08 2:25 ` jcea at jcea dot es
@ 2015-07-08 7:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-07-08 7:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65988
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jesus Cea from comment #7)
> I close this but report, but I would love future GCC releases to document
> what CLOOG and ISL versions they require.
It already does, see gcc/doc/install.texi in the source tarball.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread