--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-04 13:10 ---
What you are seing is either an assmebler bug or just dwarfdump not supporting
relocations for 64bit. I want to say the latter. This is not a GCC bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #7 from mlynarik at decef dot elf dot stuba dot sk 2005-11-04
09:12 ---
We have created the assembler sources with the parameters -dA. You can see that
there are no differences between the 32bit and 64bit versions except the length
of the fields (4bytes and 8bytes). So I thi
--- Comment #6 from mlynarik at decef dot elf dot stuba dot sk 2005-11-04
09:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=10142)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10142&action=view)
Assembler source from compilation of example2-64.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #5 from mlynarik at decef dot elf dot stuba dot sk 2005-11-04
09:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=10141)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10141&action=view)
Assembler source of comiled example2-32.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24634
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-03 14:32 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Can you look instead into the .s file when compiled with -dA which adds
annotations and then see if DW_AT_high_pc and DW_AT_low_pc is really zero. I
really doubt it. What you are seeing is
--- Comment #3 from mlynarik at decef dot elf dot stuba dot sk 2005-11-03
11:46 ---
We have attached a c-source file which was compiled once for 64bit abi and once
for 32bit abi with command: "mips64-linux-gnu-gcc -c -gdwarf-2 -mabi=XX
example1.c". The resulting object files are example
--- Comment #2 from mlynarik at decef dot elf dot stuba dot sk 2005-11-03
11:39 ---
Created an attachment (id=10122)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10122&action=view)
Example files describing the problem
Zipped archive contains a c-source, 2 object files and 2 dwar
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 15:19 ---
Are you sure that there are no relocations and that it is zero because of them?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24634