[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 Bug 82575 depends on bug 82687, which changed state. Bug 82687 Summary: [8 regression] g++.dg/asan/default-options-1.C fails starting with r253914 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82687 What|Removed

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 --- Comment #10 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Tue Oct 24 12:45:01 2017 New Revision: 254042 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254042=gcc=rev Log: PR82687, g++.dg/asan/default-options-1.C fails with PR82575 fix The problem with

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 --- Comment #8 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Thu Oct 19 23:06:20 2017 New Revision: 253914 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253914=gcc=rev Log: PR82575, lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails If

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 --- Comment #7 from Alan Modra --- > --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > OK. I suppose they are properly prevailed by any global symbol of the same > name > as well? Like a weak definition with default visibility? Or is there

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On October 19, 2017 2:33:17 PM GMT+02:00, amodra at gmail dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 > >--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra --- >>

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 --- Comment #5 from Alan Modra --- > --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- > Hmm, but those symbols will prevail, enlarging the final symbol table? > Or are weak + hidden symbols removed even for shared libaries? Well, they are still

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #2) > Created attachment 42397 [details] > proposed patch > > I hadn't debugged past grepping for "debugobj" when I created the bugzilla. > Now that I've looked

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- Patch now bootstrapped and regression tested powerpc64le-linux.

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra --- Created attachment 42397 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42397=edit proposed patch I hadn't debugged past grepping for "debugobj" when I created the bugzilla. Now that I've looked

[Bug lto/82575] [8 Regression] lto debugobj references __gnu_lto_slim, ld test liblto-17 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82575 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|