--- Comment #53 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-27 16:32 ---
Reassigning since H.J. fixed the bug.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #54 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-08-27 18:43 ---
(In reply to comment #52)
Hi, this backport to gcc-4.1-4.1.2-9 on debian breaks the glibc build on hppa.
The link of librt.so is missing the declaration of symbol
__librt_multiple_threads.
For all the bug reports
--- Comment #52 from seb at frankengul dot org 2007-06-13 10:12 ---
(In reply to comment #51)
I believe I'm seeing this bug using a redhat build: gcc4.1.1-1 (shows up all
the way through -51). It's only on 64bit FC5, 32bit is okay and am installing
FC6 to test. Building XULRunner
--- Comment #51 from redfive at songbirdnest dot com 2007-01-19 03:25
---
I believe I'm seeing this bug using a redhat build: gcc4.1.1-1 (shows up all
the way through -51). It's only on 64bit FC5, 32bit is okay and am installing
FC6 to test. Building XULRunner with --enable-canvas
--- Comment #49 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 12:55
---
This is fixed on the mainline. It is maybe worth backporting as it cannot be
worked around.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #50 from hjl at lucon dot org 2007-01-09 15:11 ---
The (In reply to comment #49)
This is fixed on the mainline. It is maybe worth backporting as it cannot be
worked around.
The backported patches for gcc 4.1/4.2 are at
--- Comment #48 from kazu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-16 02:47 ---
Subject: Bug 20218
Author: kazu
Date: Sat Dec 16 02:47:27 2006
New Revision: 119959
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119959
Log:
Backport from mainline:
gcc/
2006-12-11
--- Comment #47 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 07:39 ---
This is probably (I have not checked yet as I am still bootstrapping) still a
problem on MIPS because my fix for the bootstrap breakage caused by H.J.'s
patch removes the generic fix in elfos.h.
--
daney at gcc
--- Comment #44 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-11 17:04 ---
This patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00594.html
doesn't cause any regressions on AIX nor HPUX:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00595.html
--- Comment #45 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-12 02:14
---
This version is OK for mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Comment #46 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-12 03:59 ---
Subject: Bug 20218
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Dec 12 03:58:52 2006
New Revision: 119764
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119764
Log:
2006-12-11 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR middle-end/17982
--- Comment #41 from jbeulich at novell dot com 2006-12-07 08:15 ---
That's not a good idea, I think. The semantics of how to treat undefined
symbols in the symbol table that arten't used in any relocations depend on the
OS ABI, not the ELF file format. Non-gld linkers may interpret
--- Comment #42 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-07 13:57 ---
I agree with Jan and HJ here. We must not emit symbols to unreferenced
symbols. Even the size increase wouldn't be really acceptable. In a way
ELF _is_ special here, so special handling is completely justified. In
--- Comment #43 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-07 14:05 ---
I posted the updated patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00477.html
I have asked Steve and Janis to test it on AIX and HPUX. We are calling
process_pending_assemble_externals in 2 different places anyway.
--- Comment #36 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-12-06 13:22 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
The hidden definition in main_skel.o is ignored due to COMDAT group.
could you fill PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Comment #37 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-06 14:19 ---
The updated patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00397.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Comment #38 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-06 14:39 ---
(In reply to comment #36)
(In reply to comment #32)
The hidden definition in main_skel.o is ignored due to COMDAT group.
could you fill PR?
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3666
--
--- Comment #39 from jason at redhat dot com 2006-12-06 19:14 ---
Subject: Re: Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility (hidden)))
to hide a symbol
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
Jason, are you actively working on this? (We are motivated to fix the
problem,
so if you're not
--- Comment #40 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-12-07 06:35 ---
Subject: Re: Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility (hidden)))
to hide a symbol
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00397.html
I'm still not happy with the cgraph_optimize
--- Comment #28 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-05 21:13
---
Jason, are you actively working on this? (We are motivated to fix the problem,
so if you're not working on it, then maybe we can help.)
HJ's patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg00391.html
--- Comment #29 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-05 21:41 ---
I am not sure if my patch handles hidden data reference properly. Should I work
on that?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Comment #30 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-12-05 21:51 ---
Subject: Re: Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility (hidden)))
to hide a symbol
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
--- Comment #29 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-05 21:41 ---
I am not sure if my patch handles
--- Comment #31 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-12-05 22:00 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
(In reply to comment #26)
Created an attachment (id=12714)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12714action=view) [edit]
main_skel.o
It looks OK. Please provide a complete
--- Comment #32 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-05 23:33 ---
(In reply to comment #31)
(In reply to comment #27)
(In reply to comment #26)
Created an attachment (id=12714)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12714action=view) [edit]
main_skel.o
It
--- Comment #33 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-05 23:58 ---
The updated patch is posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00361.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Comment #34 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-12-06 06:44 ---
Subject: Re: Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility (hidden)))
to hide a symbol
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
--- Comment #33 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-05 23:58 ---
The updated patch is posted at
--- Comment #35 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-06 06:55 ---
(In reply to comment #34)
Subject: Re: Can't use __attribute__ ((visibility (hidden)))
to hide a symbol
hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
--- Comment #33 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-12-05 23:58 ---
The
--- Comment #24 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-11-30 10:47 ---
currently i'm trying to build the kdelibs with gcc42-svn.
my qt and gcc are patched with:
http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/SOURCES/gcc-pr20218.patch?rev=HEAD
--- Comment #25 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-30 14:44 ---
The problem is with .libs/main_skel.o. Why don't you show us the relocation
and definition in .libs/main_skel.o?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Comment #26 from pluto at agmk dot net 2006-11-30 15:16 ---
Created an attachment (id=12714)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12714action=view)
main_skel.o
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Comment #27 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-30 15:53 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
Created an attachment (id=12714)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12714action=view) [edit]
main_skel.o
It looks OK. Please provide a complete testcase. It could be a gcc bug,
--- Comment #22 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 02:41
---
I still say if the definition was not marked as having a visibility, then the
code is wrong as someone could mark stuff weirdly.
Now does the other question (since I cannot remember when looking at the elf
--- Comment #23 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-02 04:30 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
I still say if the definition was not marked as having a visibility, then the
code is wrong as someone could mark stuff weirdly.
Yes, if someone's code marks a function as hidden in a
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #19 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2005-12-06
11:15 ---
Created an attachment (id=10416)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10416action=view)
Testcase with linker script
This testcase uses a linker script. The proposed patch
--- Comment #20 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-12-06 19:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=10421)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10421action=view)
patch for current 4.1 branch.
I would love to see a ppc-linux part for this patch.
--
--- Comment #21 from pluto at agmk dot net 2005-12-06 20:55 ---
ok, I hope this ppc-elf-linux fix for pr20218-x86-32_64.patch is correct.
with this both testcases work.
diff -uNrp a/gcc/config/rs6000/linux.h b/gcc/config/rs6000/linux.h
--- a/gcc/config/rs6000/linux.h2005-11-30
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||ismail at kde dot org dot tr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||schwab at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-05-16 15:48 ---
Bug 21382 is a duplicate of bug 19664, which also requires the libstdc++
change.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From pluto at agmk dot net 2005-05-16 01:42 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
I posted an updated patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg00391.html
It works for me on ia32, ia64 and x86_64.
with this version of the patch gcc builds
--- Additional Comments From pluto at pld-linux dot org 2005-05-05 00:31
---
(In reply to comment #12)
The first attempt is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01835.html
patches for pr19664 and 20218 kill gcc bootstrap. gcj fails:
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||mmazur at kernel dot pl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From pluto at pld-linux dot org 2005-05-05 00:37
---
(In reply to comment #13)
(In reply to comment #12)
The first attempt is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01835.html
patches for pr19664 and 20218 kill gcc
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-05-05 00:47
---
... maybe, while you are at it, you can check whether the patch for 19664 alone
is ok with current mainline?!? Thanks in advance.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at pld-linux dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-03-01 16:04 ---
The first attempt is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01835.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-28 14:49
---
.hidden is intentionally emitted only at the definitions, not for the undefs.
Otherwise a header with 1000 prototypes with __attribute__((visibility
(hidden))) would result in 1000 STV_HIDDEN SHN_UNDEF
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-28 15:51 ---
You don't have to emit a STV_HIDDEN SHN_UNDEF symbol unless it is referenced.
On HPUX/ia64, gcc does emit SHN_UNDEF symbols. I hope it only emits referenced
SHN_UNDEF symbols.
--
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-02-27
09:11 ---
Is this a regression?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-27 16:16 ---
__attribute__ ((visibility (hidden))) is a new feature. We can define
ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL to make it work properly. I can try to come up with
a patch if everyone agrees is a bug.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-27
16:19 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
__attribute__ ((visibility (hidden))) is a new feature. We can define
ASM_OUTPUT_EXTERNAL to make it work properly. I can try to come up with
a patch if everyone agrees is a bug.
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-27 16:32 ---
My guess is this is an ELF only bug. I don't beleive ppc-darwin is an ELF
target.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19664
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-25 23:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=8287)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8287action=view)
A testcase
On ia32
[EMAIL PROTECTED] hidden]$ make
gcc -O -g -c -o main.o main.c
gcc -O -g -fPIC -c -o foo1.o
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
01:24 ---
Hmm, from the elf spec:
If different visibility attributes are specified for distinct references to or
definitions of a symbol, the
most constraining visibility attribute must be propagated to the
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-26 01:42 ---
It is a gcc bug where gcc failed to mark foo as hidden with
gcc -O -g -fPIC -c -o bar.o bar.c
foo is defined in foo2.c.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-26
02:00 ---
Huh, foo is defined in a different TU (module in elf terms).
Where in the elf documention says this what you said should happen?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20218
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-02-26 02:30 ---
From the elf spec:
If different visibility attributes are specified for distinct references to or
definitions of a symbol, the
most constraining visibility attribute must be propagated to the resolving
symbol in the
62 matches
Mail list logo
