[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 --- Comment #11 from Rich Felker --- FYI a workaround for this and similar bugs, for users who are unable to upgrade, is to always use -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections. This inhibits the assembler's "optimization" differences between symbols

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 --- Comment #9 from Rich Felker --- Indeed, the fdpic patch I forward-ported introduced new duplicates of some of the fragments that were changed in sh.md by the above patch. Once I fixed those, the problem went away. Sorry for the noise.

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 --- Comment #7 from Rich Felker --- Created attachment 36359 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36359=edit preprocessed source still affected by the bug Oddly I'm still experiencing this bug for some functions but not others,

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 --- Comment #8 from Rich Felker --- Perhaps hold off on worrying about this; it's only happening with -mfdpic (with my forward-port of the fdpic patch applied) so it's possible that the bug is on my end in code that's not in upstream gcc. I'll

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 --- Comment #6 from Kazumoto Kojima --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #5) > Kaz, do you think it's OK to backport this to GCC 5? It looks like the > patch is not so intrusive... Changing relocation is always intrusive, I think. I won't

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 --- Comment #4 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kkojima Date: Mon Aug 24 23:23:00 2015 New Revision: 227155 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=227155root=gccview=rev Log: PR target/66609 * [SH] Take into account weak

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kkojima at

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 --- Comment #2 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx --- The patch in comment 1 applies successfully to GCC 5.2.0 and fixes both the test case and the real-world code I was experiencing problems with. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to some of

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 --- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #2) Thanks for the confirmation. I'll commit the patch after the undergoing additional test done.