[Bug libmudflap/28077] [4.1/4.2 regression] pass39-frag.c produces mudflap violation on alpha

2006-09-20 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28077

[Bug libmudflap/28077] [4.1/4.2 regression] pass39-frag.c produces mudflap violation on alpha

2006-09-10 Thread jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.1.2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28077

[Bug libmudflap/28077] [4.1/4.2 regression] pass39-frag.c produces mudflap violation on alpha

2006-06-19 Thread tbm at cyrius dot com
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-19 19:34 --- Created an attachment (id=11705) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11705&action=view) more detailed log This is with the options you specified but it seems it doesn't contain so much more information. Did

[Bug libmudflap/28077] [4.1/4.2 regression] pass39-frag.c produces mudflap violation on alpha

2006-06-19 Thread fche at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2 from fche at redhat dot com 2006-06-19 14:01 --- It looks like only the statically linked multithreding test cases trigger the problem. Would you mind trying ot hand-build one of those executables, but adding -rdynamic to LDFLAGS, and run with -backtrace=99 in MUDFLAP_OPT

[Bug libmudflap/28077] [4.1/4.2 regression] pass39-frag.c produces mudflap violation on alpha

2006-06-18 Thread tbm at cyrius dot com
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2006-06-18 17:16 --- Created an attachment (id=11691) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11691&action=view) testsuite logs -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28077