[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED CC|

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 James Greenhalgh changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #16 from Antonio Poggiali --- (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #15) > > > > > What userspace is running on the target? > > > > Sorry but I don't understand the question. Could you explain a little? > > Debian/Ubuntu/Andr

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 James Greenhalgh changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #14 from Antonio Poggiali --- > > Your toolchain is arm-none-linux-gnueabi , but you build with > -mfloat-abi=hard - do you have suitable hard-float libraries on the target? > I have only hard-float libraries and related system he

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 James Greenhalgh changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #12 from Antonio Poggiali --- Created attachment 35879 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35879&action=edit Temporary patch for gcc 4.9.3 A temporary patch masking the problem on gcc 4.9.3

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #11 from Antonio Poggiali --- (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #10) > (In reply to Antonio Poggiali from comment #9) > > Sorry, this code: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cgraphunit. > > c?r1=221077&r2=2

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson --- (In reply to Antonio Poggiali from comment #9) > Sorry, this code: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cgraphunit. > c?r1=221077&r2=221076&pathrev=221077 Yes, but I'm not convinced it's the r

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #8 from Antonio Poggiali --- Hi all, I'm also trying the backport. https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cgraphunit.c?revision=221077&view=markup&pathrev=221077 Is only this part of code to be backported? Regards

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #9 from Antonio Poggiali --- (In reply to Antonio Poggiali from comment #8) > Hi all, I'm also trying the backport. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/cgraphunit. > c?revision=221077&view=markup&pathrev=221077 > > Is only

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson --- The test case in comment #0 stopped breaking on trunk with r221077, the fix for PR65236 (a gcc-5 IPA regression). Backporting r221077 to 4.9.3 unbreaks this test case there. However: - I can't get this

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com --- Comm

[Bug c++/66666] ARM wrong copy constructor address on multiple inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6 --- Comment #5 from Antonio Poggiali --- Sorry but this comment is incorrect. See the next one.