https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #26 from Alan Modra ---
> What's your reasoning? If the prevailing definition is in the IR, the
> compiler will (theoretically) supply a more-optimized version of that
> function than the one in the non-LTO object. Why deliberately
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #25 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Cary Coutant :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=648c5cbbf34dcbf96bde7e07b14868777fd5d635
commit 648c5cbbf34dcbf96bde7e07b1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #24 from Cary Coutant ---
> If _bfd_elf_merge_symbol sets *skip, then the new symbol will be ignored. We
> don't want to do that with a new real weak symbol if we currently have an
> IR-only definition (either strong or weak).
Wh
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
--- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Alan Modra :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=6f4c0a426c653867c40936a9b8f503628adbd64b
commit 6f4c0a426c653867c40936a9b8f50
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #23 from Alan Modra ---
If _bfd_elf_merge_symbol sets *skip, then the new symbol will be ignored. We
don't want to do that with a new real weak symbol if we currently have an
IR-only definition (either strong or weak).
--
You ar
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #22 from Cary Coutant ---
> Hmmm. Unless this was part of an attempt to preserve existing behavior while
> moving from a separate hash table to using the new flags, it looks like an
> unrelated change that was slipped into this pat
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #21 from Cary Coutant ---
>/* Skip weak definitions of symbols that are already defined. */
>if (newdef && olddef && newweak)
> {
> - *skip = TRUE;
> + /* Don't skip new non-IR weak syms. */
> + if (!
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #20 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Cary Coutant from comment #19)
> > commit 3a5dbfb2502e7a49422f13c9cec2becfd46f44f1
> > Author: Alan Modra
> > Date: Tue Jun 21 14:55:26 2011 +
> >
> > * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_merge_symbo
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #19 from Cary Coutant ---
> commit 3a5dbfb2502e7a49422f13c9cec2becfd46f44f1
> Author: Alan Modra
> Date: Tue Jun 21 14:55:26 2011 +
>
> * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_merge_symbol): Allow type changes for
> plugin symbols
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #18 fro
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #17 from Cary Coutant ---
> For ld, non-LTO definition takes precedence over LTO one.
What symbol resolution does ld tell the compiler for the LTO
definition? The LTO design was intended to preserve the same binding
order that wou
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
For ld, non-LTO definition takes precedence over LTO one.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
Here is the difference between gold and ld:
[hjl@gnu-6 test]$ cat foo.c
#include
void foo () __attribute__ ((weak));
void
foo ()
{
printf ("Non-LTO\n");
}
void
bar ()
{
}
[hjl@gnu-6 test]$ cat foo1.c
#in
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19002
--- Comment #6 from Evgeniy Stepanov ---
The bfd linker warning about not being able to build .eh_frame_hdr was very
useful for me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19019
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19002
Cary Coutant changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Cary Cout
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19002
--- Comment #4 from Evgeniy Stepanov ---
Thank you, Cary!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19851
Bug ID: 19851
Summary: Binutils fails to build with -O0
Product: binutils
Version: 2.26
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #14 from Matt Godbolt ---
I've sent my full results to H.J.Lu and Cary directly. Thanks both.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutil
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #13 from Matt Godbolt ---
Thanks, I will do.
grepping the -v output:
$ grep '_ZNSt8functionIFvvEED[12]Ev' gcc_verbose_output
/tmp/gcc/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5.2.0/../../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/bin/ld:
out/haswell/main/Sy
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Matt Godbolt from comment #11)
> Hi H.J. Lu,
>
> I've made a build of your binutils, supplied -Wl,-plugin-save-temps and kept
> all the files generated. I will share the files with you over email.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #11 from Matt Godbolt ---
Hi H.J. Lu,
I've made a build of your binutils, supplied -Wl,-plugin-save-temps and kept
all the files generated. I will share the files with you over email.
Looking at the ltrans1.o file generated with
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19850
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19850
Bug ID: 19850
Summary: [Fix] Wrong parsing attribute in DW_FORM_flag_present
form. (Info pointer Warning) + Patch
Product: binutils
Version: 2.27 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #9 from Matt Godbolt ---
Hi H.J.Hu,
Cary already made a patched binutils (users/ccoutant/gold-record) which does a
similar thing: that's how Cary was able to debug further.
Would it be useful for me to build your branch too and g
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
users/hjl/lto-mixed/master branch implemented -plugin-save-temps
linker option. It can be used together with GCC -save-temps to
figure out what ld does.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19823
--- Comment #6 from Rafael Ávila de Espíndola ---
> Or, perhaps (I need to check...), gold might be incorrectly allowing
> the COPY relocation to a protected symbol, failing to consider that
> the bindings within the shared object will be stat
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at ucw dot cz,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19803
--- Comment #14 from martin.koegler at chello dot at ---
You can consider my xstrdup use as a bug [safest choice].
Binutils 2.26 + patch from Comment #13 works for a larger project for
x86_64-w32-mingw.
For i686-w64-mingw32, I have an issue r
31 matches
Mail list logo
