https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
--- Comment #21 from Jim Cownie ---
Thanks for the workaround, Jakub; it's somewhat perverse, but better than the
alternatives!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Jim Cownie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jcownie at gmail dot com
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Yves Vandriessche changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yves.vandriessche at intel dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Sameer Sheorey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ssameer at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.3 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
--- Comment #16 from Matthew Krafczyk krafczyk.matthew at gmail dot com ---
I've just checked this bug again with ubuntu 14.10. This is with glibc 2.19,
and with the master branch of gcc (commit
3c4e189973c43b7f3c2ebb27abf32e9cb175ba82).
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
--- Comment #15 from Matthew Krafczyk krafczyk.matthew at gmail dot com ---
I can now confirm what siddhesh says. with 4.8 the first fragment succeeds,
while the second fails.
I also tested the git gcc and git glibc, and the first fragment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
--- Comment #14 from Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh at redhat dot com ---
I spoke to Jason last week and have now confirmed that the first fragment
indeed works correctly with 4.8. Declaring a variable threadprivate *after* it
is defined is not yet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Matthew Krafczyk krafczyk.matthew at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||siddhesh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.1 |4.8.2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.8.0 |4.8.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Carlos O'Donell carlos at systemhalted dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
Brooks Moses brooks at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brooks at gcc dot
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-18 05:08 ---
*** Bug 35246 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-30 21:56 ---
*** Bug 34303 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-18 16:51 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-16 10:20 ---
Guess the message should be sorry rather than error.
Without glibc and binutils support for .tinit_array/.tfini_array this really
isn't fixable.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
--- Comment #2 from Georg dot Baum at post dot rwth-aachen dot de
2006-05-16 15:04 ---
Yes, I think that would be good. Then you know that you are not doing something
wrong but that it is a tool chain limitation.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27557
21 matches
Mail list logo
