[Bug binutils/32506] removed functions showing up in objdump listing and gdb

2025-01-07 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32506 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- For targets where zero is a valid address a linker option to specify an alternate relocation target for targets within GCed sections might be a workaround, specifying an address that more likely doesn't c

[Bug binutils/32506] removed functions showing up in objdump listing and gdb

2025-01-07 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32506 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug binutils/32506] removed functions showing up in objdump listing and gdb

2025-01-02 Thread trampas at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32506 --- Comment #2 from Trampas Stern --- Wow 13415 is from 13 years ago! However I have only noticed int GCC 11 and newer, but I guess the bug could have been there much longer. I have not looked at source code but my guess is the linker is pla

[Bug binutils/32506] removed functions showing up in objdump listing and gdb

2025-01-02 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32506 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug binutils/32506] removed functions showing up in objdump listing and gdb

2024-12-30 Thread sam at gentoo dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32506 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug binutils/32506] removed functions showing up in objdump listing and gdb

2024-12-30 Thread trampas at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32506 --- Comment #1 from Trampas Stern --- Note this issue also has the bug in GCC: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118221 I was told it was not a GCC bug but a binutils bug. However this can be debated by those who know more than m