https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531
Bug ID: 19531
Summary: ld fails to build proper executables in several cases
on x64_64-w64-mingw32
Product: binutils
Version: 2.26
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: rai...@emrich-ebersheim.de
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 8929
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8929&action=edit
test case
I first discovered this by bootstrapping gcc and running the testsuite. I got
around 1200 new failures for the same gcc revision using binutils-2.26 compared
to using binutils-2.25.1, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-01/msg02756.html
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2016-01/msg02757.html
Most failures in the libstdc++ testsuite, 954 additional failures.
Besides the new failures, some tests which PASS and a some which FAIL allocate
huge memory spaces, over 40 GByte.
So I tried to analyze a bit. I picked a test case from the libstdc++ testsuite
22_locale/locale/cons/6.cc. Checking the preprocessed source, the assemply and
the object files for the support library and the test case itself there's no
difference. I disabled all debug information for an easier comparison. The
objects are identical for both versions.
I attach a test archive containing the support library and the object file, two
versions of the executable and the two dlls libstdc++-6.dll and
libgcc_s_seh-1.dll
to run the executables on a windows system.
The executable 6-2.15.1.exe is the one which is linked using ld-2.15.1, the
executable 6-2.16.exe is the one which is linked using ld-2.16.
The first one is fine the latter isn't.
I don't know how to analyze any further. Can someone have a look, please.
--
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
