https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #36 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Well... if I can't confirm it myself, and I can't put it in SUSPENDED,
> and I can't mark it as RESOLVED... I guess I'll assign it to you then.
An alternative would be to move the component from
inal Message-
> From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org]
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 6:00 AM
> To: urbanj...@comcast.net
> Subject: [Bug fortran/42568] [Cygwin] BLOCKDATA referenced in EXTERNAL not
> loading from library
>
> https://gcc.gnu.o
[mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 6:00 AM
To: urbanj...@comcast.net
Subject: [Bug fortran/42568] [Cygwin] BLOCKDATA referenced in EXTERNAL not
loading from library
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #34 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> So... what should we do with this bug then? I'm trying to move it out
> of the WAITING queue. Change to SUSPENDED?
I am afraid that SUSPENDED is some kind of black hole for problems waiting
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #33 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #32)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #30)
> > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #29)
> > > I happened to just get Cygwin installed and running on my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #32 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #30)
> (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #29)
> > I happened to just get Cygwin installed and running on my Windows box. Let
> > me run some tests and see if I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #31 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
It may be of interest that the original application where this was encountered
was changed to use modules, which I have had no similar problem with on Cygwin;
but that the bug1.sh attachment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
CC|
bug1.sh
ar: creating libex.a
COMPILER gfortran
BAD LOAD ix2(4)=
-Original Message-
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 7:20 AM
To: urbanj...@comcast.net
Subject: [Bug fortran/42568] [Cygwin] BLOCKDATA referenced in EXTERNAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #27 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Is it still true on recent versions of Cygwin (it has been fixed on darwin
> since darwin10, see pr34136)?
Ping! Without answer I'll close this PR as FIXED.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|WAITING
--- Comment #24 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-16 23:18 ---
Fixed in trunk.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #25 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-16 23:47 ---
Re-open. Sorry guys, wrong PR.
--
kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #21 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 14:46 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Dave, do you know how to emit the forceload and just exactly what is this?
g77 does it as shown in
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/branches/gcc-3_4-branch/gcc/f/com.c?view=markup
--
--- Comment #22 from ian at airs dot com 2010-01-05 16:09 ---
For ELF, when the GNU linker has seen a common symbol, and then sees that
symbol in the archive map, it will look in the object to see whether the object
defines the symbol (rather than simply providing another common
--- Comment #23 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-01-05 18:12 ---
This looks like a duplicate of pr34136.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 09:44 ---
Mark as new as Jerry has confirmed it. Jerry, do you see whether this is a
regression? From comment 0: this worked in previous versions of gfortran
It would be useful to know in which version it still worked. Does
--- Comment #12 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 15:42 ---
COMMON symbols don't cause members to be pulled in from library archives. You
can omit -L. -lex from the final link altogether and get the same result:
it's unused. So the reference from bug.o to _jindx2 doesn't
--- Comment #13 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-01-04 16:05 ---
The test fails also on *-apple-darwin9, but not on x86_64-apple-darwin10.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 16:13 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
COMMON symbols don't cause members to be pulled in from library archives. You
can omit -L. -lex from the final link altogether and get the same result:
it's unused. So the reference
--- Comment #15 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 16:36 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #12)
COMMON symbols don't cause members to be pulled in from library archives.
You
can omit -L. -lex from the final link altogether and get the same result:
--- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 17:13 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #12)
COMMON symbols don't cause members to be pulled in from library archives.
You
can omit -L. -lex from the final link
--- Comment #17 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 18:05 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
You made an unmerited assertion that COMMON symbols don't cause
members to be pulled in from library archives. I've shown the
counter example.
On what platform?
This appears to
--- Comment #18 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 18:06 ---
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1811 also looks pertinent.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42568
--- Comment #19 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-04 18:56 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
You made an unmerited assertion that COMMON symbols don't cause
members to be pulled in from library archives. I've shown the
counter example.
On
--- Comment #20 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-05 03:01
---
I have read through the links given by Dave. My take is that we have some
implementation dependent, non portable, behaviour in linkers. Now that we know
we have this inconsistency, the question is do we want
28 matches
Mail list logo
