https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18452
--- Comment #13 from Cristian Gavril Olar ---
Thank you for your patience and contributions to this thread so far. It was in
any case very instructive.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18452
--- Comment #12 from Cristian Gavril Olar ---
Created attachment 9141
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9141&action=edit
Quick thing to check
I'd like to quickly check something with you all. See this attached modified
v
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19872
--- Comment #2 from Britton Kerin ---
$ cat test.c
int
main (void)
{
return 0;
}
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -Werror -g -c test.c -o test.o
$ rm -f test && gcc -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--incremental test.o -o test
test: stat: No such file or directory
link
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19880
Bug ID: 19880
Summary: gas/config/tc-arm.c:12519 error: comparison between
signed and unsigned integer expressions
Product: binutils
Version: unspecified
Status: NEW
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19872
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19877
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18452
--- Comment #11 from Andrei Lupas ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #7)
> Since there seems to be enough interest in this bug for people to actually
> write patches, here is what I think would work and be accepted:
>
> In lang_size_sec
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17334
--- Comment #11 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=ed3056ebdb9795446157af03d3e08fbb93c1b01d
commit ed3056ebdb9795446157af03d3
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19722
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Nathan,
> I'm not assembling this instruction, I am disassembling it from raw bytes.
Ah - OK - that makes sense. I am not sure if it is really worth fixing this
problem though. It would take a lot of
