[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-12-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-12-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Dec 11 10:28:39 2018 New Revision: 266974 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266974=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/86004 * doc/sourcebuild.texi (lto_incremental): Document

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-12-10 Thread hubicka at ucw dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka --- Thanks a lot for looking into this. Indeed disabling the tests is probably good idea, so the patch looks good to me. Somewhere we should document minimal binutils release supporting incremental link...

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-12-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-11-12 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- Both of our (Red Hat internal) build servers have been upgraded to Fedora 29 so we don't see the failures anymore but they will still com up on systems with older Binutils. Is it possible to add some sort

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-11-12 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka --- I wonder if we can close this based on fact that it only reproduces on sufficiently old binutils and we simply can't support incremental linking on these?

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-07-12 Thread seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 86496 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-07-04 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-06-19 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka --- If I recall correctly, old binutils issue warning when plugin produce IL file which is done for incremental linking. I do not think there is a way to prevent this message from gcc side other than requiring

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-06-04 Thread tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-06-01 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-05-31 Thread seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- I tried a couple of different versions of binutils on one system where this was occurring and it happens with binutils 2.26 but doesn't with 2.27 (and later).

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-05-31 Thread seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Sorry about that. The actual complaints are about a missing plugin from the loader. I've never seen anything like that before. gcc/testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.log:/usr/bin/ld:

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

2018-05-30 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka --- Can you please check in g++.log what kind of error you get? Incremental linking now produce LTO objects while previously it did produce final binary. I went through testcases where this makes difference and