--- Comment #7 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-17 14:26
---
Subject: Bug 39010
Author: espindola
Date: Tue Feb 17 14:25:46 2009
New Revision: 144231
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=144231
Log:
2009-02-16 Rafael Avila de Espindola espind
--- Comment #7 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-03-26 13:27
---
Subject: Bug 39001
Author: espindola
Date: Thu Mar 26 13:26:56 2009
New Revision: 145088
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145088
Log:
2009-03-26 Rafael Avila de Espindola espind
Version: 4.5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
--- Comment #1 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 17:54
---
Created an attachment (id=18837)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18837action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
--- Comment #2 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 17:55
---
Created an attachment (id=18838)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18838action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
--- Comment #3 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 17:55
---
Created an attachment (id=18839)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18839action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
--- Comment #4 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-20 17:55
---
Created an attachment (id=18840)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18840action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41767
--- Comment #1 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-21 15:51
---
The produced symbol table is incorrect:
~/binutils/inst/bin/nm test.o
t MAIN__
U _gfortran_set_args
U _gfortran_set_options
0001 C gnu_lto_v1
--- Comment #2 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 18:17
---
Subject: Bug 41652
Author: espindola
Date: Tue Oct 27 18:17:13 2009
New Revision: 153610
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=153610
Log:
2009-10-27 Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbac...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-28 21:32
---
This testcase was fixed on revision 153685.
--
espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-30 18:31
---
Fixed on revision 153764.
--
espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: lto
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet
--- Comment #1 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-12 17:05
---
Created an attachment (id=19005)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19005action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42020
--- Comment #2 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-12 17:05
---
Created an attachment (id=19006)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19006action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42020
--- Comment #4 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-16 17:57
---
Created an attachment (id=19022)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19022action=view)
proposed fix
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41996
--- Comment #5 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 16:18
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Hm, the assert doesn't trigger if I add a tem != field check. In fact I do
not
understand the assert you added at all ;)
I completely misunderstood the assert you asked
--- Comment #1 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-18 20:21
---
Is strtoll defined in some other header in hppa64-hp-hpux11.11? If it isn't, I
will start porting it to libiberty.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42096
--- Comment #3 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 15:30
---
Subject: Bug 42096
Author: espindola
Date: Thu Nov 19 15:30:04 2009
New Revision: 154330
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=154330
Log:
2009-11-19 Rafael Avila de Espindola espind
--- Comment #4 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-19 15:57
---
Closing this bug as bootstrap should now work. The gold plugin still needs some
portability improvements.
--
espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-17 18:09
---
I tried to build gcc on darwin to debug this but the build fails with a link
failure (sorry, don't remember exactly where). Do I need to do something
special to build on darwin?
The error message is emitted
--- Comment #2 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-12 16:29
---
Is the undefined reference to libgcc? Is it being linked statically? When
linking libgcc statically the driver has to pass
-plugin-opt=-pass-through=/foo/bar/libgcc.a to ld. This is done in gcc.c:
%{static
--- Comment #4 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-30 23:24
---
Subject: Bug 36974
Author: espindola
Date: Wed Jul 30 23:23:33 2008
New Revision: 138347
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=138347
Log:
2008-07-30 Rafael Avila de Espindola [EMAIL PROTECTED
--- Comment #5 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 03:54
---
Note that
-plugin-opt=-pass-through=/foo/bar/libgcc.a
is missing in the linker invocation.
That is the problem. When BUG is not defined, the undefined reference is
visible early on. You can check
--- Comment #12 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 15:28
---
(In reply to comment #11)
GCC was configured with --disable-shared option. It seems that the driver does
not understand that --disable-shared implies static libgcc
That is correct. Currently we have
--- Comment #14 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-17 05:47
---
I don't think that in general we can support things like -nodefaultlibs -lc
-lgcc. Doing that with static libraries and lto is such an uncommon case that
it is probably OK to ask the user to also pass -Wl,-pass
--- Comment #1 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-19 04:45
---
The problem is coming from
DECL_FUNCTION_PERSONALITY (expr) = lto_input_tree (ib, data_in);
This reads in __gxx_personality_v0 as an external function and we try to add it
to the symbol table. If using
--- Comment #6 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-13 18:02
---
It works with the llvm plugin for gold. I also find the gold output funny. What
the llvm plugin does is
if (I-syms[i].resolution == LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF ||
(I-syms[i].def == LDPK_COMMON
--- Comment #7 from espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-13 18:10
---
The llvm change is
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revrevision=64616
so I still don't know why gold is not returning LDPR_PREVAILING_DEF for the
common symbol definition.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: rguenther at suse dot de
ReportedBy: espindola at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
29 matches
Mail list logo
