https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147
--- Comment #3 from Alan Modra ---
Here is my thinking, FWIW.
What is the value of an undefined symbol?
Why should a branch to zero not report an overflow, if there is indeed an
overflow?
Try linking the same testcase on x86_64, but with -T
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18147
--- Comment #4 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
We already explicitly do not report relocation errors for weak undefined
symbols. That's because in those cases the relocation overflow is not
important. And Cary is right: for any sort of undefined s
For these 3 warnings I already suggested a patch:
mingw32-gcc -c -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Og -g3 -D__USE_MINGW_ACCESS -I.
-I../../binutils-2.25/libiberty/../include -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wc++-compat -Wstrict-prototypes -pedantic
../../binutils-2.25/libiberty/strerror.c -o strerror.o
In file
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18152
Bug ID: 18152
Summary: internal error in do_relocate_sections, at
gold/reloc.cc:953
Product: binutils
Version: 2.26 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18152
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|internal error in |[2.26 Regression] internal
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18152
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.26
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
It wa
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18152
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola cha
nged:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafael.espindola at
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18152
--- Comment #3 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola ---
Created attachment 8201
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8201&action=edit
self contained testcase
This crashes:
$ ld-new -shared -o foo.so -plugin ./LLVMgold.so
