https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26143
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
tom> I get the impression that the "which might not be the same as that of the
following assembly instruction" formulation refers to a situation like this
yup
nick> what do you think that the assembler
://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-April/1
33602.html
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: aoliva at sourceware dot org
Target Milestone: ---
The
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22870
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
||aoliva at sourceware dot org
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |aoliva at sourceware
dot org
--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Mine. Patch at https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2019-04/msg00161.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
|unassigned at sourceware dot org |aoliva at sourceware
dot org
--- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva ---
Mine, just awaiting some feedback on the proposed courses of action.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22870
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aoliva at sourceware dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22870
--- Comment #2 from Alexandre Oliva ---
I suspect the source of the problem is the lack of view reset asserts.
Without that, the assembler gets an uninterrupted chain
of symbolic views, in which each view is computed based on the view
before
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at sourceware dot org 2009-01-26 18:18
---
"Doesn't support" is quite strong. It was mostly developed on 64-bit hosts.
Anyhow, I'll have a look as soon as I get a chance. Wouldn't mind if someone
beat me to it. I remembe
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at sourceware dot org 2008-06-03 04:35
---
The patch does indeed appear to get the code to patch the spec (thanks, Nick!),
but I'm concerned that, at this point, it might be wiser to change the spec to
match the code, for a couple of kernels and
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at sourceware dot org 2007-03-15 05:24
---
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-03/msg00149.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at sourceware dot org 2005-11-05 17:19
---
Fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|aoliva at sources dot redhat
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1630
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
13 matches
Mail list logo
