https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30856
--- Comment #7 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to Antoni Boucher from comment #6)
> Do you mean that gcc produces invalid asm when using the Intel syntax and
> should be using pushq?
No. "push offset ..." is the correct form in Intel syntax. W
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30877
Bug ID: 30877
Summary: [BUG][RISCV]relro protection not working in riscv
Product: binutils
Version: 2.40
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30834
Vladimir Mezentsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30834
--- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Mezentsev
:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=7434de7ef9aef6307de8cb8244ca27a67dc99245
commit 7434de7ef9aef6307de8c
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30856
--- Comment #6 from Antoni Boucher ---
(In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #5)
> Well, only partly: PUSHQ works, but PUSH (no suffix) doesn't according to my
> testing.
Do you mean that gcc produces invalid asm when using the Intel syntax a
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30856
--- Comment #5 from Jan Beulich ---
(In reply to Antoni Boucher from comment #4)
> I attached the ATT version (produced by gcc) that still works.
Well, only partly: PUSHQ works, but PUSH (no suffix) doesn't according to my
testing.
--
You a
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30856
--- Comment #4 from Antoni Boucher ---
Created attachment 15119
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15119&action=edit
Working example with ATT syntax
Yes, this is useful for -mcmodel=kernel and the code continues to work w
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30856
Jan Beulich changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at suse dot com
Ever confi
