[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #19 from Emil Jiří Tywoniak --- (In reply to Emil Jiří Tywoniak from comment #18) > (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #17) > > Any chance you can try with a toolchain using binutils-2.35? > > > > As I indicated in

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #18 from Emil Jiří Tywoniak --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #17) > Any chance you can try with a toolchain using binutils-2.35? > > As I indicated in https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+bug/1747966 > there's a

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 Emil Jiří Tywoniak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||emil at tywoniak dot eu ---

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 eitan at mosenkis dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eitan at mosenkis dot net

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 Matthijs Kooijman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matthijs at stdin dot nl ---

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > and then I get > > > gcc-7 t2.s t1.c -flto > /tmp/ccGhH7Cp.o:(.data+0x0): undefined reference to `Handler' > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > gcc-7

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 Bernd K changed: What|Removed |Added CC||prof7bit at gmail dot com --- Comment #11

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, hurwic8 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 > > --- Comment #7 from Rafał Mszal --- > Thanks for response. > > I've send some

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Still not 100% sure which Handler should prevail in resolving the symbol for Dispatch. Currently it seems the non-weak one prevails which looks correct. I think in both cases the resolution from GNU ld is

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW CC|

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #7 from Rafał Mszal --- Thanks for response. I've send some basic example of the failure. However, it needs some others file to compile and link, like linker, SystemInit function decalration and so on. I've just send you most

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #6 from Rafał Mszal --- Created attachment 43212 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43212=edit Startup file for the nRF52 microcontroller. This is typical startup for nRF5x microcontrollers. The main thing that is

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #5 from Rafał Mszal --- Created attachment 43211 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43211=edit Makefile that causes failure.

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #4 from Rafał Mszal --- Created attachment 43210 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43210=edit Basic example of main funtion with LTO failure. This is simple example of observed LTO issue. RTC1_IRQHandler is

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On January 22, 2018 4:36:00 PM GMT+01:00, "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 > >--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Also I was going to say the c function maybe should be marked as used as lto likes to remove unused functions in general.

[Bug lto/83967] LTO removes C functions declared as weak in assembler(depending on files order in linking)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83967 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||lto, wrong-code Target|