https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19854
Mike Frysinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
--
Y
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19854
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4933
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 9119
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9119&action=edit
Proposed patch
Could someone please try out this *experimental* patch and let me know if it
works ?
Cheers
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19854
Bug ID: 19854
Summary: Build fails with gcc<4.9: -Wstack-usage not support
Product: binutils
Version: 2.27 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Co
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4933
--- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton ---
Hmm, reads title of the PR OK so we need to escape the spaces in the name.
Hang on sec then...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4933
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #8
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19795
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17334
--- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 9118
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9118&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Waldemar,
Does this patch fix the problem ?
I still do not like removing this assert
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #30 from Cary Coutant ---
> The LTO symbols are of course not the
> final symbols but only tentative definitions. When merging symbols, if we
> see a weak symbol in a non-LTO object after seeing the tentative definition
> from an
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19480
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Stephen,
Did you see the patch for PR 19531 go in ? I think that it might be relevant
here too..
The only other thing that I can think of is the new, extra, patch that has been
uploaded to PR 19803.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #29 from hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
> /* Skip weak definitions of symbols that are already defined. */
> if (newdef && olddef && newweak)
> {
> /* Don't skip new non-IR weak syms. */
> if (!(oldbfd != NULL
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
--- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi H.J.
OK - I have checked the patch in. Are there any more problems, or can this
PR be closed now ?
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
--- Comment #7 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=34b9f7292f9c75d09c169a293c1f021eb97517ca
commit 34b9f7292f9c75d09c169a293c1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #5)
> Created attachment 9117 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Hi H.J.
>
> The compiler that I am using does not generate these warnings, so please
> could you try out th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #28 from Alan Modra ---
I was just trying to answer comment #21. In that narrow context I didn't
understand your mention of "non-LTO object", and thought you must mean a
-ffat-lto-objects file. So let's forget that, and ignore my
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 9117
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9117&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi H.J.
The compiler that I am using does not generate these warnings, so please
could you
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #16 from Nick Cli
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19803
--- Comment #17 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 9115
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9115&action=edit
patch to add _ prefixed exported names
Hi Martin,
OK - I have checked the current patch in.
Does this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19803
--- Comment #16 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=4153b6dbb0f38a16fd5b583761aa811212fbb9a5
commit 4153b6dbb0f38a16fd5b583761
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19850
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19850
--- Comment #2 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Alan Modra :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=a97fbc7e3ca781b8d95ed8591c6ee65f2d8a798a
commit a97fbc7e3ca781b8d95ed8591c6ee
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Version|2.26
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19002
--- Comment #7 from Greg Masters ---
Thanks for the fix.
I agree, I think the warning would be useful.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Thanks Alan,
I thought that this might be the problem, but I could not find a way to
reproduce the failure in order to test a fix.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19803
--- Comment #15 from martin.koegler at chello dot at ---
The remaining i686-w64-mingw32 problem:
It uses a different symbol name different to the exported symbol name:
Eg. testval is exported, but the symbol in the .o file is called _testval.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #27 from Cary Coutant ---
> The case where this came up is when we are merging the optimised object, and
> were given a weak symbol. The non-LTO object (from -ffat-lto-objects) isn't
> loaded if the plugin claims the object.
Sorr
27 matches
Mail list logo
