https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #19 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Matthias Klose
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:80ff137368412a1628cd56b76a860a76a08fd8ea
commit r10-8743-g80ff137368412a1628cd56b76a860a76a08fd8ea
Author: Matthias Klose
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #17 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4c22e830251e1961c6ebec78d28d039eb2e6017
commit r11-2361-gc4c22e830251e1961c6ebec78d28d039eb2e6017
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Thu Jul 16 07
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #15)
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
> >
> > --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
> > (I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
>
> --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > Please this patch.
>
> /* Merge and update the -fcf-protection option. */
>
> but here you take the setting from the la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> Please this patch.
/* Merge and update the -fcf-protection option. */
but here you take the setting from the last file rather than merging it,
I'd have expected a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-16
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 48885
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48885&action=edit
A patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #9)
> Comment on attachment 48881 [details]
> Something like this
>
> please could you update gcc/doc/invoke.texi?
It needs more than documentation.
> is error only supp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #9 from Matthias Klose ---
Comment on attachment 48881
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48881
Something like this
please could you update gcc/doc/invoke.texi?
is error only supposed to be passed in LDFLAGS, not i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 48881
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48881&action=edit
Something like this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #7 from Matthias Klose ---
Please could you elaborate how this should be revisited?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
By design, mixing CET and non-CET objects must be allowed. We should
revisit PR 95604.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Arguably the simplest solution is to demote the error to a warning,
> --enable-cet
> is supposed to only enable CET instrumentation of (part of) the runtime. If
> we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96203
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|LTO bootstrap with |[11 Regression] LTO
|
16 matches
Mail list logo
