--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2009-06-20
02:53 ---
documentation fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-20
02:52 ---
Subject: Bug 10302
CVSROOT:/cvs/src
Module name:src
Changes by: amo...@sourceware.org 2009-06-20 02:52:08
Modified files:
gas: ChangeLog
gas/doc: a
--- Additional Comments From ianw at vmware dot com 2009-06-19 21:28
---
I guess that makes sense, thanks. Obviously the semantics I was looking for
are different; I would just like whole duplicate strings pruned. I don't
actually have (or want) a symbol pointing to the strings in th
--- Additional Comments From ianw at vmware dot com 2009-06-19 21:22
---
*** Bug 10303 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10302
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or
--- Additional Comments From ianw at vmware dot com 2009-06-19 21:22
---
stupid refresh button
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10302 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
---
I specify some strings in a section in an object file, and everything looks
good.
---
$ cat one.c
#define STRING(symbol) \
asm(".pushsection " ".asection" ",\"aSM\", @progbits, 1\n" \
"\t.string \"" #symbol "\" \n" \
"
--- Additional Comments From drow at false dot org 2009-06-19 21:13 ---
Subject: Re: New: ld merging smaller strings into larger
strings?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 08:59:39PM -, ianw at vmware dot com wrote:
> I'm quite unsure why the final def is merged out? The documentatio
I specify some strings in a section in an object file, and everything looks
good.
---
$ cat one.c
#define STRING(symbol) \
asm(".pushsection " ".asection" ",\"aSM\", @progbits, 1\n" \
"\t.string \"" #symbol "\" \n" \
"
--- Additional Comments From chris at seberino dot org 2009-06-19 17:50
---
I can't apply patch from bug #10288 and bug #10297 at same time.
They crash into each other when you try to apply both of them.
Can you make a patch that includes both fixes?
chris
--
http://sourceware.org
--- Additional Comments From chris at seberino dot org 2009-06-19 17:50
---
I can't apply patch from bug #10288 and bug #10297 at same time.
They crash into each other when you try to apply both of them.
Can you make a patch that includes both fixes?
chris
--
http://sourceware.org
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2009-06-19 14:51
---
Hi Chris,
I take your point. Please try out the uploaded additional patch which should
fix this.
Cheers
Nick
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2009-06-19 14:51
---
Created an attachment (id=4009)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4009&action=view)
Fix coprocessor opcode discrimination
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10288
--- Y
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2009-06-19 13:56
---
Hi Chris,
The first 'discrepancy' is deliberate. The immediate value in a shifted
operand can only be in the range 0 - 31 so there is no benefit in providing a
hexadecimal equivalent. When an immediate value i
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2009-06-19 13:53
---
Created an attachment (id=4008)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4008&action=view)
Use a consistent descriptive string for undefined instructions
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bu
14 matches
Mail list logo
