https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81733
--- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #6) > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5) > > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4) > > > > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3) > > > > > > --- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > > > > > Is this still current? > > > > > > > > > > It is: just tried with a vanilla tree at r252892. > > > > > > So with Eric's fix for 81361, and jamming reorder_and_partition = 0, most > > > of > > > the dwarfdump --verify fails go away, but not all (and the unwinder is > > > still > > > broken). Will take a look at them later. > > > > some of the verify fails seem to be caused by the ancient dwarfdump not > > being smart enough; ld64 and BINUTILS objdump seem to be happy that the FDEs > > are well-formed (more checking to be done) > > however (on 10.11.6), a trivial c++ try catch, succeeds -static-libgcc with > 7.2 but not with trunk.. and the c++ code is essentially unchanged. NM, false measurement, not 100% comparable tests.
