--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-20 00:38
---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNC
--- Comment #15 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-11-19 17:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] profilebootstrap failure
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-19 10:38
> ---
> Changing the summary to reflect r
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-19 16:22
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Changing the summary to reflect reality and remove some of the obscure-ness.
> Mark, what was the obscureness you are refering to?
well both using BOOT_CFLAGS and profiledbootstrap tog
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-19 10:38
---
Changing the summary to reflect reality and remove some of the obscure-ness.
Mark, what was the obscureness you are refering to?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-19 02:22
---
This is too obscure to be release-critical.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 21:07
---
See http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=994 for the binutils
bug.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24934
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 21:02
---
So if -g does not fix it, then this is not related at all to PR 22313.
We should just disable --freorder-blocks-and-partition if gas is unwilling to
support unwind info when the section changes.
See http://sources
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 21:01 ---
Arguably an as bug, but maybe we should not use -freorder-blocks-and-partition
on ia64 profiledbootstrap.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24934
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 21:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=10285)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10285&action=view)
wrong assembly
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24934
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 21:00 ---
Created an attachment (id=10284)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10284&action=view)
profile data 2/2
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 20:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=10283)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10283&action=view)
profile data 1/2
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 20:59 ---
Created an attachment (id=10282)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10282&action=view)
testcase
new testcase. Compile with
stage1/cc1 -fpreprocessed c-lex.i -quiet -dumpbase c-lex.i -auxbase-strip
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 20:28 ---
Grrr, the testcase was created with some older binutils. Trying to create one
with one that matches the reported error.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24934
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 20:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=10280)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10280&action=view)
profile data 2/2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24934
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 20:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=10279)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10279&action=view)
profile data 1/2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24934
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
16 matches
Mail list logo
