Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SECTION_NAMED check is redundant; this function only deals with
> named sections. FWIW, I think it would be cleaner to put:
>
> if (((sect->common.flags ^ flags) & SECTION_WRITE) != 0)
> sect->common.flags |= SECTION_WRITE;
>
> befo
Thanks for looking at this.
Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + /* Allow mixed writable and read-only objects in named
> sections. */
> + if ((sect->common.flags & SECTION_NAMED) != 0
> + && ((sect->common.flags ^ flags) & ~SECTION_DECLARED)
> +
On 9/2/07, Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bootstrap of current trunk on powerpc64-linux fails in libstdc++
> > building system_error.lo. The code that fails was added a few days
> > ago,
> > but the failure seems to be the same as the one reported in PR 31490.
> > I
> > verified
Bootstrap of current trunk on powerpc64-linux fails in libstdc++
building system_error.lo. The code that fails was added a few days
ago,
but the failure seems to be the same as the one reported in PR 31490.
I
verified that the patch from comment #10 of that PR allows bootstrap of
c,c++,fortra
Bootstrap of current trunk on powerpc64-linux fails in libstdc++
building system_error.lo. The code that fails was added a few days ago,
but the failure seems to be the same as the one reported in PR 31490. I
verified that the patch from comment #10 of that PR allows bootstrap of
c,c++,fortran to
