https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03519175e21f4c2940aeb446cd2b81fdf995cad5
commit r14-8711-g03519175e21f4c2940aeb446cd2b81fdf995cad5
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:506e74f53a5e4f607284d3c41da17cdd3eca4fb8
commit r14-8521-g506e74f53a5e4f607284d3c41da17cdd3eca4fb8
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b3b3788c579856abcfdc6eed589c64dc7e88cdb
commit r14-8520-g7b3b3788c579856abcfdc6eed589c64dc7e88cdb
Author: Iain Sandoe
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
Created attachment 57182
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57182=edit
patch under test
this is what I'm testing
- these functions are removed from libgcc.a and added to libgcc_eh.a
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #13 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > Or put it in libgcc_eh.a and libgcc_s.so.1?
>
> Yes, that's what I came up with as well (conceptually, not a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #12 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Or put it in libgcc_eh.a and libgcc_s.so.1?
Yes, that's what I came up with as well (conceptually, not a patch, and I only
have a background in ELF), but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #10)
> it is an optimisation, yes - but as Richi points out, if we change this it
> will affect ABI - so it is ideal to do this before the first release that
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
it is an optimisation, yes - but as Richi points out, if we change this it will
affect ABI - so it is ideal to do this before the first release that includes
it?
- IIUC Jakub's suggestion:
- remove the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Note, normally libgcc.a symbols are made .hidden (and that is the case of even
these 2 functions). So, when not using -shared-libgcc (implicitly or
explicitly), every shared library or binary uses its own
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer ---
In the current implementation, as far as I understand it, avoiding multiple
objects is just an optimization, not a correctness issue. STB_GNU_UNIQUE is for
correctness (although I don't think we'd
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113403
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Keywords|
12 matches
Mail list logo