This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC build failed for native with your patch on 2003-09-05T11:02:39Z.
>
> On Saturday, Sep 6, 2003, at 18:01 US/Pacific, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> >>>Please do,
> >>>time to go sleep for me, but I will take a look into it tommorow.
> >>>
> >>>Thank you for testing!
> >>>Honza
> >>
> >>Here it is (I am getting good at this reducing thing),
> >>I have not tested your newer patch though:
> >>
> >>template<typename _CharT>
> >> struct __timepunct_cache
> >> {
> >> static const _CharT* _S_timezones[14];
> >> };
> >>template<> const char* __timepunct_cache<char>::_S_timezones[14];
> >>template<typename _CharT>
> >> class time_get
> >> {
> >> public:
> >> typedef _CharT char_type;
> >> void _M_extract_name(const _CharT** __names) const;
> >> void _M_extract_via_format() const;
> >> };
> >>
> >>template<typename _CharT>
> >> void
> >> time_get<_CharT>::
> >> _M_extract_via_format() const
> >> {
> >> _M_extract_name(__timepunct_cache<_CharT>::_S_timezones);
> >> }
> >>template class time_get<char>;
> >
> >Can you please send me the assembly I am supposed to get and what is
> >wrong there? The symbol in question seems to be defined just well in
> >my
> >version (but I have somewhat modified tree so perhaps I fixed it in
> >meantime). I will try fresh one tomorrow.
>
> Here is the diff of the two assembly, the good one is "+" where there
> is a non_lazy_ptr:
Hmm, I do have non_lazy_ptr in unit-at-a-time output as well, but I do
have quite number of changes in the tree. I will try to figure out what
fixed that tomorow, today is really bit late.
Thanks!
Honza