http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Jackie Rosen jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #37 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2012-04-16 13:29:06 UTC ---
A few more references:
The fix for this one issue is:
https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1IZ98134
But this introduces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
vladimir penev vovata at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vovata at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #33 from vladimir penev vovata at gmail dot com 2011-09-15
08:44:04 UTC ---
An update on this subject at my side.
After some interactions with IBM AIX support there is a fix
https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg1IV06344
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #34 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2011-09-15
14:01:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
Vladimir, this [GCC] bug report has nothing to do with the assembler
segfaulting. The problem is that the linker can't link what
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #35 from vladimir penev vovata at gmail dot com 2011-09-15
14:14:16 UTC ---
Yes, it's true. And using the mentioned efix for AIX the problem doesn't exist
any more, the assembler generates correct code and the linker links it as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
mrgcc at mailinator dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrgcc at mailinator dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #26 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2011-05-17 14:52:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
The fixed assembler is available as an efix for customers who ask.
We did do this here, but the efix'ed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #27 from Dr. David Kirkby david.kirkby at onetel dot net
2011-05-17 15:25:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
The fixed assembler is available as an efix for customers who ask.
Can you give me more precise details about how to get
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #28 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2011-05-17
18:12:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
An upgrade to the AIX assembler has introduced a bug that can generate invalid
object files. The is an AIX bug, not a GCC bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #29 from Paul Pryor ppryor63 at gmail dot com 2011-05-17 23:49:44
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
(In reply to comment #25)
An upgrade to the AIX assembler has introduced a bug that can generate
invalid
object files. The is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #30 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2011-05-18
01:12:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
If you would look at comment #2, that is what I did.
Ah, thanks for the reminder.
The generated assembly appears to include
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #24 from Dr. David Kirkby david.kirkby at onetel dot net
2011-04-12 02:38:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
(In reply to comment #22)
I found an workaround. When I realized that /usr/bin/as was the culprit
(from
looking at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #21 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2011-04-08 07:53:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
mean? Does this mean IBM consider it a GCC bug? I don't find the explanations
on the page too useful.
The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #22 from Paul Pryor ppryor63 at gmail dot com 2011-04-08 19:56:15
UTC ---
I found an workaround. When I realized that /usr/bin/as was the culprit (from
looking at IZ98134), I tried using as from other AIX box at TL4, and it worked
out
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #23 from Dr. David Kirkby david.kirkby at onetel dot net
2011-04-08 21:31:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
I found an workaround. When I realized that /usr/bin/as was the culprit (from
looking at IZ98134), I tried using as from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #18 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2011-04-07 07:59:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
ld: 0711-596 SEVERE ERROR: Object expand.o
An RLD for section 2 (.data) refers to symbol 852,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #19 from Perry Smith pedzsan at gmail dot com 2011-04-07 12:55:19
UTC ---
Yes. Thats the one.
Dave,
First, I believe this link is a public facing interface to Fix Central
http://www.ibm.com/support/fixcentral/
(it came from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #20 from Dr. David Kirkby david.kirkby at onetel dot net
2011-04-07 17:15:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
IBM is aware of the issue (via me and others). The last tidbit I have is
that
it appears as if it is another
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #17 from Claudio Bantaloukas rockdreamer at gmail dot com
2011-04-06 08:35:27 UTC ---
Comment on attachment 23120
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23120
Patch to simply not use bss section with .bs, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #16 from Dr. David Kirkby david.kirkby at onetel dot net
2011-03-24 13:22:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Let me try and recap.
The initial report was that 5.3 TL10 did *not* have the error. I discovered
that 5.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #11 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon
dot at 2011-03-23 07:46:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
IZ81343 (or one of its sister APARs) fixes the original issue. But, it leaves
a new issue. The new error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Dr. David Kirkby david.kirkby at onetel dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #13 from Perry Smith pedzsan at gmail dot com 2011-03-23 13:26:10
UTC ---
On Mar 23, 2011, at 2:47 AM, michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot at wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #11 from Michael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #14 from Dr. David Kirkby david.kirkby at onetel dot net
2011-03-23 17:11:42 UTC ---
Has anyone with an AIX support contract ever raised this issue with IBM? If so,
is there a publicly viewable location for this?
If not, can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #15 from Perry Smith pedzsan at gmail dot com 2011-03-23 19:31:18
UTC ---
Let me try and recap.
The initial report was that 5.3 TL10 did *not* have the error. I discovered
that 5.3 TL10 SP03 does. See [1].
APAR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #8 from Perry Smith pedzsan at gmail dot com 2011-03-18 17:10:32
UTC ---
It appears that this not a gcc bug but an AIX bug. There is one change but
more changes are needed. I'll try to update when I know more. Expect it to be
a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2011-03-18
18:05:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
It appears that this not a gcc bug but an AIX bug.
The error was precipitated by an AIX system update, but at the same time, it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #10 from Perry Smith pedzsan at gmail dot com 2011-03-18 18:57:07
UTC ---
IZ81343 (or one of its sister APARs) fixes the original issue. But, it leaves
a new issue. The new error looks like:
ld: 0711-596 SEVERE ERROR: Object
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Perry Smith pedzsan at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pedzsan at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #6 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot
at 2011-02-09 09:03:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Created attachment 23120 [details]
Patch to simply not use bss section with .bs, but private-data-section
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #4 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot
at 2011-01-25 12:52:22 UTC ---
What exactly is the difference for gcc between not initializing a static
variable and initializing it to zero?
This is the difference
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #5 from Michael Haubenwallner michael.haubenwallner at salomon dot
at 2011-01-25 15:40:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 23120
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23120
Patch to simply not use bss section with .bs, but
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
Paul Pryor ppryor63 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppryor63 at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Richard G. skunk at iskunk dot org 2010-10-19
21:51:44 UTC ---
I'd like to add: We've been able to work around this issue in our C codebase
simply by ensuring that every static variable is initialized with a value. The
38 matches
Mail list logo
