https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119784
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.3
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #9)
> I tried this out with CPython's interpreter that uses tail calls with the
> patch at
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/saved/master?ref_type=heads
> applied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61120|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Ken Jin from comment #9)
> I tried this out with CPython's interpreter that uses tail calls with the
> patch at
> https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/saved/master?ref_type=heads
> applied
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 61120
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61120&action=edit
A tested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #61093|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119784
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 61098
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61098&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this.
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr119628]$ cat x1.c
#define DONT_SAVE_REGS __attribute__((no_callee_saved_registers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
no_caller_saved_registers only works with XMM and ZMM, not YMM, since YMM load
will clear the upper 256 bits of ZMM.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2025-April/140473.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> Hi!
>
> Since ...
>
> commit 2707d55e539ef323dd14a1293e762bf3d9739ee7
> Author: Michael Matz
> Date: Mon Mar 31 15:57:08 2025 +0200
>
> [lto] Fix symlookup in
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||32854
Referenced Bugs:
https://sourceware
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32854
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||32846
Referenced Bugs:
https://sourceware
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32854
Bug 32854 depends on bug 32846, which changed state.
Bug 32846 Summary: LTO link failures in various packages since
2707d55e539ef323dd14a1293e762bf3d9739ee7
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
What|Removed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32854
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-09
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32860
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Definition of GCC builtin |Definition of GCC builtin
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 lto-6]$ cat pr31482a.c
#include
int
main()
{
abort ();
return 0;
}
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 lto-6]$ cat pr31482c.c
#include
#include
void
abort (void
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32860
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Definition in the archive |Definition of GCC builtin
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
when a shared library defines 'foo@@FOO' (default version),
a static archive defines 'foo', the shared lib c
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #7)
> Ultimately first_hash was introduced for what really is a bug in the compiler
> (pr31482, where the LTO .o files don't contain a reference to abort in their
> symbol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to ak from comment #2)
> The existing attributes could just handle this case?
Caller needs to know what registers are saved by callee. But caller doesn't
know what ISAs are used by callee.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32813
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andreas Abel from comment #2)
> Yes, it causes issues in
> https://github.com/andreas-abel/nanoBench/tree/master/tools/cpuBench, which
> is the code that generates the benchmarks that are behind
> h
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32779
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32816
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aliaksey Kandratsenka from comment #2)
> As noted above, I have tried --no-as-needed. And yes it kinda "works", but
> it is not great.
>
> There several imperfections with --no-as-needed:
>
> *)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119628
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
no_calle(e|r)_saved_registers=gpr(16|32)?
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32813
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andreas Abel from comment #5)
> If it is not a bug, but a conscious choice to prefer the form without the
> REX prefix to optimize the instruction size, I would expect that
> `{nooptimize} LSL RCX,
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64
On x86-64, r15-9029-geb26b667518c95 gave
FAIL
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: haochen.jiang at intel dot com, liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86-64
On x86-64
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
||2025-03-23
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Does the current behavior cause any issues in actual codes?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32816
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com
Ever con
|NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2025-March/140085.html
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32813
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andreas Abel from comment #4)
> Yes, I could add workarounds to my code, but it would be preferable if this
> could be fixed at the source. Earlier versions of gas correctly added the
> REX prefix,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #4)
> Looks good to me thanks.
>
> Except should there be an error if the immediate exceeds imm8 or imm16?
It is a hint, not a hard requirement.
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32807
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119386
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #11)
> access to the respective GOT slot). Upstream binutils now silently do emit a
> route via PLT, our binutils complain. I'm not sure that upstream behaviour
> is
> i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119386
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32787
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > It looks like the testcase is fragile, it's supposed to check the compiler
> > ability of generating code_6_gottpoff_reloc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117069
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #6)
> > > It looks like the testcase is fragile, it's supposed to check the compiler
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32787
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.45
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32787
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for 2.45 so far.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119299
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to AK from comment #0)
...
> https://godbolt.org/z/3xh6Mxq4j
FYI,
https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/gcc/-/tree/users/hjl/condjmp/gcc-16?ref_type=heads
generates:
.globl g1
.type g1, @func
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 gcc]$ cat /tmp/y.c
typedef char vec_t __attribute__((vector_size(16)));
extern void func1(vec_t);
extern void
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119294
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
CSE turns
(insn 18 16 19 2 (set (mem/c:V16QI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 19 frame)
(const_int -16 [0xfff0])) [0 MEM
[(void *)&x]+0 S16 A128])
(subreg:V16QI (reg:V4SI 111) 0)) "x.c":11:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119297
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Component|middle-end
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32787
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
y: P2
Component: gprof
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
When binutils is compiled without -g, I got
-- expected
+++ actual
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
-25 f1 2000
-31 f2 1000
-40 f3 1
+0 f1 2000
+0 f2 1000
+0 f3 1
FAIL
m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
When binutils is configured with
$ CC="gcc" CXX="g++" CFLAGS="-O2 -g -flto" CXXFLAGS="-O2 -g -flto"
.../configure
I got
/export/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119171
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
On x86-64, r15-7900-g622968990beee7 gave:
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr119083]$ cat x.i
long
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32768
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32768
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #0)
> Disassembly of f1 and f2 shows the expected calls are there, it's just
> that gprof miscategorises the f2->f1 call as f1->f1.
>
> 00401196 :
> 401196:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32768
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32768
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Which compiler was used?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119142
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60673
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60673&action=edit
A patch
I am testing this with
if (GENERAL_REGNO_P (hard_regno))
{
/* push is 1 byte while typical spil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119142
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
Something like
diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
index 661e71b032c..8e599bb22fc 100644
--- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
+++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
@@ -20613,11 +20613,10 @@ ix86_calle
|NEW
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32764
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
This change:
diff --git a/gprof/gprof.c b/gprof/gprof.c
index 9392575f747..d1cbf25fa28 100644
--- a/gprof/gprof.c
+++ b/gprof/gprof.c
@@ -527,17 +527,6 @@ This program is free software. This program has
absolu
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32765
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32764
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2
: gprof
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
commit b8189cf9e40bd90502c9a2ce0df39dd54419bea4
Author: Richard Allen
Date: Sun Feb 16 16:50:05 2025 -0600
gprof: only process line numbers for intersection of
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32762
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32761
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32761
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|binary created by ld will |2.43/2.44 Regression]
|se
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32762
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25237
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32761
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32761
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
It is caused by
commit 0bc3450e220a4fb29f931ada84b546ce8993e85e
Author: Alan Modra
Date: Fri Dec 13 16:14:57 2019 +1030
Set no file contents PT_LOAD p_offset to first page
PR 25237
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32761
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32761
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32761
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
Section to Segment mapping:
Segment Sections...
00 .note.gnu.build-id .init .plt .plt.got .text .fini
^^^
Data, .note.gnu.build-id, in the executable segment is unexpected.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60647
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60647&action=edit
A patch to remove CREG and BREG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p
Hongtao, can you measure its impact on SPEC CPU 201
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1)
> > SSE_FIRST_REG is in ic86_class_likely_spilled_p because it is a
> > single-member class. It is there because of SSE4 pcmpistrm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #14)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > > Created attachment 60609 [details]
> > > An untested patch
> >
> > Hongtao, do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> Created attachment 60609 [details]
> An untested patch
Hongtao, do you have SPEC CPU2017 data on this patch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119083
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60640
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60640&action=edit
A patch to remove SSE_FIRST_REG from ix86_class_likely_spilled_p
Hongtao, can you measure its impact on SPEC CPU2017
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86
SSE_FIRST_REG was added to CLASS_LIKELY_SPILLED_P, which became
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> Created attachment 60609 [details]
> An untested patch
Tested on x86-64 with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board='unix{-m32,}'".
There are no regressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60607|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> Created attachment 60607 [details]
> A patch
>
> Here is the patch to change TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P to
> return false for x86-64.
This doesn't work:
/ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
Testing this:
diff --git a/gcc/ira.cc b/gcc/ira.cc
index 885239d1b43..e93a596e2a9 100644
--- a/gcc/ira.cc
+++ b/gcc/ira.cc
@@ -2158,6 +2158,10 @@ decrease_live_ranges_number (void)
|| (targetm.small_regis
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60607
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60607&action=edit
A patch
Here is the patch to change TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES_FOR_MODE_P to
return false for x86-64.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118996
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
SMALL_REGISTER_CLASSES was added by
commit c98f874233428d7e6ba83def7842fd703ac0ddf1
Author: James Van Artsdalen
Date: Sun Feb 9 13:28:48 1992 +
Initial revision
which became TARGET_SMALL_REGISTER_CLA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #60590|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > Created attachment 60590 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Can you try this on SPEC CPU?
>
> No big impact for both O2 and Ofa
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32459
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> The BFD library provides:
>
> 1. bfd_get_dynamic_reloc_upper_bound to count dynamic relocations.
> 2. bfd_canonicalize_dynamic_reloc to retrieve dynamic reloctions.
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32459
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.45
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32459
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|objdump -R: dump SHT_RELR |libbfd doesn't report RELR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 60590
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60590&action=edit
A patch
Can you try this on SPEC CPU?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118992
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Hongtao Liu from comment #9)
>
>
> Remove check of 2 hooks regressed
>
> gcc: gcc.target/i386/pr111673.c check-function-bodies advance
> unix/-m32: gcc: gcc.target/i386/pr49095.c scan-assembler-not
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32459
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nickc at redhat dot com|hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
1 - 100 of 2520 matches
Mail list logo
