--- Comment #45 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-11 19:20
---
Fixed in 4.2.0, mainline.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #44 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-11 18:58
---
Subject: Bug 29487
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sun Feb 11 18:58:05 2007
New Revision: 121819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121819
Log:
PR target/29487
* tree.h (DECL_REPLACEABL
--- Comment #43 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 01:13
---
Fixed in 4.1.2, 4.2.0.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #42 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 01:02
---
Subject: Bug 29487
Author: mmitchel
Date: Sat Feb 10 01:02:30 2007
New Revision: 121788
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121788
Log:
2007-02-06 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
P
--- Comment #41 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-09 02:53
---
Subject: Bug 29487
Author: mmitchel
Date: Fri Feb 9 02:52:53 2007
New Revision: 121738
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=121738
Log:
PR target/29487
* tree.h (DECL_REPLACEABL
--- Comment #38 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-06
21:18 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
> Created an attachment (id=13011)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13011&action=view)
> --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=
--- Comment #37 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-06
14:13 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
> The patch proposed makes sense, Dave can you verify it fixes this PR for you?
> I'll spin some testing on the trunk in a moment.
Yes. I'll try when an upda
--- Comment #36 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 11:17
---
(In reply to comment #34)
> I'll prepare a patch to revert my 2004 change too.
I suspect that a 100% literal reversion will run into problems where the
use of a global variable will result in the the analysis of o
--- Comment #35 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 11:10
---
(In reply to comment #25)
> I think the analysis should be deeper than just "binds_local_p", though;
> I think it should be based on whether "attribute ((weak))" (or
> equivalent) explicitly appears, so that we do
--- Comment #34 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-02-06 10:41 ---
The two bits were actually the same, since passes.c was doing this exactly
after calling set_nothrow_function_flags
if (current_function_nothrow)
/* Now we know that this can't throw; set the flag for the benefit
--- Comment #33 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 10:39
---
It does not work either:
/abuild/rguenther/obj-29487/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/abuild/rguenther/obj-29487/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/abuild/rguenther/obj-29487/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/abuild/rgue
--- Comment #32 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 10:18
---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Created an attachment (id=13011)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13011&action=view) [edit]
> proposed, untested patch
>
As far as I can tell, this patch takes care
--- Comment #31 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-06 09:26
---
The patch proposed makes sense, Dave can you verify it fixes this PR for you?
I'll spin some testing on the trunk in a moment.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29487
--- Comment #30 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-02-06 08:37 ---
Created an attachment (id=13011)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13011&action=view)
proposed, untested patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29487
--- Comment #29 from paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch 2007-02-06
08:26 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
> Paolo, would you be able to undo the change to make "foo" not marked
> TREE_NOTHROW? IIUC, that would be different than the patch you posted
> in Comment
--- Comment #28 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-05 20:08 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #27 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 19:52
> ---
> (In reply to comment #25)
>> I think the ana
--- Comment #27 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 19:52
---
(In reply to comment #25)
> I think the analysis should be deeper than just "binds_local_p", though;
> I think it should be based on whether "attribute ((weak))" (or
> equivalent) explicitly appears, so that we don
--- Comment #26 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 19:35
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> If you refer to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg00559.html this
> little patch would undo any semantic changes introduced there. I didn't
> follow
> the discussion however
--- Comment #25 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-05 19:33 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
[Paolo, see below for question.]
> --- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 09:06
> ---
> What we w
--- Comment #24 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 19:26
---
(In reply to comment #18)
> It was argued in PR 29323 that it was incorrect to mark functions
> that don't bind locally with TREE_NOTHROW.
>
> I'm not sure whether it's valid at the language level to replace
> a f
--- Comment #23 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 18:34
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> I suppose PR29323 was found by inspection of GCC code rather than a real-world
> testcase so the option to revert that patch on the 4.1 branch looks appealing.
>
> (CCed Joern to clarif
--- Comment #22 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2007-02-05 09:22 ---
If you refer to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg00559.html this
little patch would undo any semantic changes introduced there. I didn't follow
the discussion however and I don't know if this is the correct fix
--- Comment #21 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 09:07
---
CCint Paolo who changed the meaning of TREE_NOTHROW.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #20 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-05 09:06
---
What we want to prevent with the patch for PR29323 is the TREE_NOTHROW flag
propagating to a locally binding function. Consider
void foo() nothrow __attribute__((weak)) {}
void bar()
{
foo();
}
we need EH unw
--- Comment #19 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-05 05:40 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
> --- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-05
> 04:02 ---
> Subject: Re: Shared libstdc
--- Comment #18 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-05
04:02 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
> I'm not sure it matters, but if these functions don't throw exceptions,
> I don't understand why we're not marking them TREE_NOTHROW. I suspect
> there's som
--- Comment #17 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-05 03:06 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca wrote:
> Unwind data. We're talking about functions compiled in the
> current object.
OK.
I'm not sure it matters, but if these
--- Comment #16 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-05
00:15 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
> I'm not sure what "EH data" is being described here. Certainly, it
> makes no sense at all to emit EH unwind information for functions which
> are not part o
--- Comment #15 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-04 22:53 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Personally, I believe that the fix for PR 29323 was wrong and has
> bloated the EH data emitted by GCC. The EH data for a module
--- Comment #14 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-03
02:50 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
Sorry, typo:
> isn't the case for the HP linker. In HP-UX 11, we don't use SDEf symbols
use SDEF
Dave
-
--- Comment #13 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-03
02:46 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
> --- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 02:08
> ---
> > If a function in a module can't throw, then we don't need EH excepti
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 02:08
---
> If a function in a module can't throw, then we don't need EH exception data
> for it.
Only if the use specifically marked it as such. Really you can replace the
weak function with any other function which then
--- Comment #11 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 01:54
---
The patch mentioned in comment #3 was applied to the 4.1 branch and
introduces a regression in 4.1.2 on hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20.
As a result, it's no longer possible to use EH exception support on
this target. This
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-12-04
01:29 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
> > > This problem was introduced by this change:
> > That makes less sense really, because this just changes how to deal with
> > TREE_NOTHROW. This sounds lik
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-11-19
21:55 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:37:02AM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> > This problem was introduced by this change:
> That makes less sense really,
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-11-13
03:09 ---
Subject: Re: Shared libstdc++ fails to link
> > This problem was introduced by this change:
> That makes less sense really, because this just changes how to deal with
> TREE_NOTHROW. This sounds like a la
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-13 02:37 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> This problem was introduced by this change:
That makes less sense really, because this just changes how to deal with
TREE_NOTHROW. This sounds like a latent bug really.
--
http://gcc.
--- Comment #3 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-13 02:25 ---
This problem was introduced by this change:
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 10 08:27:02 2006
New Revision: 117598
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117598
Log:
2006-10-10 Richard Guenther <[EMAI
--- Comment #2 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-19 01:04 ---
I'm thinking this may have been caused by the emutls patch
which was subsequently reverted.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29487
--- Comment #1 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-16 23:11 ---
Results for last successful build are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-08/msg00530.html
Don't recall any backend changes since then.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29487
40 matches
Mail list logo
