http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12804
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-05-27 20:09:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > I still got > > > > g++ -W -Wall -Werror -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 > > -fmerge-constants -g -O2 -o incremental_test_4 -Wl,--incremental-full > > -Bgcctestdir/ two_file_test_1.o two_file_test_1b.o two_file_test_tmp.o > > two_file_test_main.o > > gcctestdir/ld: error: two_file_test_2.o: multiple definition of 't1_2()' > > gcctestdir/ld: two_file_test_tmp.o: previous definition here > > gcctestdir/ld: error: two_file_test_2.o: multiple definition of 't1a()' > > gcctestdir/ld: two_file_test_tmp.o: previous definition here > > gcctestdir/ld: error: two_file_test_2.o: multiple definition of 'f10()' > > gcctestdir/ld: two_file_test_tmp.o: previous definition here > > .... > > This doesn't make sense to me -- two_file_test_2.o isn't mentioned on the link > line at all, and the linker shouldn't be looking at it. At this step in the > Makefile rule, two_file_test_tmp.o should be a copy of two_file_test_2_v1.o, > so > it does make sense that two_file_test_2.o would have duplicate symbols, but I > don't see how it's being linked given that command. > > I thought maybe I forgot to check in the regenerated testsuite/Makefile.in, > but > I checked and it looks OK in cvs. Did your build somehow skip regenerating > testsuite/Makefile? > I didn't do anything special. Can you try to build binutils with GCC 4.5 on Linux/x86-64? -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
