https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109161
Nix changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nix at esperi dot org.uk
--- Comment #2 from Nix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98860
--- Comment #24 from Nix ---
... and ten seconds after I posted that it failed again. Looks like binutils
isn't quite ready for DWARF 5 on Windows yet :(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98860
--- Comment #23 from Nix ---
OK, that works: ignore me, in my case it was just using a too old binutils.
(The error message emitted is... unhelpful: exec format error, really?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98860
Nix changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nix at esperi dot org.uk
--- Comment #22 from Nix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248
--- Comment #11 from Nix ---
The symptoms are failures to link with "relocation against protected symbol is
invalid" errors which go away when you use gold. (You can see it if you try to
build firefox, for instance.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248
Nix changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nix at esperi dot org.uk
--- Comment #9 from Nix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #10 from Nix ---
Argh, scratch that -- I need to test a tree that *doesn't* have the original
patch reverted! Doing that now, will report back once that's done.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #11 from Nix ---
Confirmed fixed (properly this time).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #9 from Nix ---
Tested on the same old GCC 4.9 build tree and eglibc system that failed in the
original report (for maximum reproducibility): it works, the regression is
cured.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #5 from Nix ---
I didn't think of that (I try to forget that fixincludes exists because it
gives me nightmares). But much though I hate fixincludes, this sort of fix (to
headers for an obsolete program which will by definition never
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #3 from Nix ---
I haven't tested that yet, so I wasn't willing to commit to it. It seems very
likely though.
(I wasn't sure of protocol, or I'd have put you in the Cc list as the author of
the fix for bug 65550, but I was afraid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68176
--- Comment #1 from Nix ---
I can confirm that reverting the fix for bug 65550 makes the pch failures go
away on my increasingly creaky eglibc 2.18 systems. So that's the smoking gun.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: pch
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: nix at esperi dot org.uk
Target Milestone: ---
Since the fix to bug 65550, more or less all pch tests fail, with symptoms
identical to those reported in bug 55399:
FAIL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50639
Nix nix at esperi dot org.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nix at esperi dot org.uk
14 matches
Mail list logo
