[Bug gold/23594] error: 'mkdtemp' was not declared in this scope

2018-12-03 Thread ccoutant at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23594 Cary Coutant changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gold/23594] error: 'mkdtemp' was not declared in this scope

2018-12-03 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23594 --- Comment #2 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=f4238194a211a6a27598a7fdf9ad63f9b5d6fbaa commit f4238194a211a6a27598a7fdf9a

[Bug gas/23939] Check frch_cfi_data before use

2018-12-03 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23939 --- Comment #4 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=314a80c41d52737c9cfdc80dc2f6f56e0d5cfd96 commit 314a80c41d52737c9cfdc80dc2f6f

[Bug ld/23906] LD Bug : Undocumented exit status 253

2018-12-03 Thread davidledger at live dot com.au
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23906 --- Comment #2 from David Ledger --- I’m not really sure how to use ld gold with arm-embedded toolchain, I don’t think it is included in the toolchain. Do you know a way I can use ld.gold or lld? I am currently working from within windows.

[Bug gas/23939] Check frch_cfi_data before use

2018-12-03 Thread wu.heng at zte dot com.cn
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23939 --- Comment #3 from wuheng --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #2) > How would you like your name to appear on a ChangeLog entry? Author: wu.heng Thanks very much! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the

[Bug ld/23935] [Regression] ld.bfd does not rescan fat LTO archives to resolve plugin-added references

2018-12-03 Thread vlad at ispras dot ru
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23935 --- Comment #7 from Vladislav Ivanishin --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6) > The behaviors of with and without -ffat-lto-objects should be the same. > Either both work or both don't. Why? I think the behavior of 'with -ffat-lto-objects

[Bug binutils/23193] aarch64: orr should not be converted to alias mov when non-zero shift

2018-12-03 Thread tnfchris at sourceware dot org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23193 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug binutils/23193] aarch64: orr should not be converted to alias mov when non-zero shift

2018-12-03 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23193 --- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=57b64c4103ffeadd524eb80b4a7d61be8c8ec871 commit 57b64c4103ffeadd524eb80

[Bug gas/23941] .debug_line section has a dwarf version set to 2 while supporting opcode from dwarf3

2018-12-03 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23941 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug gas/23941] .debug_line section has a dwarf version set to 2 while supporting opcode from dwarf3

2018-12-03 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23941 --- Comment #1 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=8acbe8ffa02f62eb9371b8626576f83fcd6989af commit 8acbe8ffa02f62eb9371b862657

[Bug binutils/19721] [libopcodes] [Aarch64] Incorrect aliasing for ORR instruction

2018-12-03 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19721 --- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=57b64c4103ffeadd524eb80b4a7d61be8c8ec871 commit 57b64c4103ffeadd524eb80

[Bug ld/23935] [Regression] ld.bfd does not rescan fat LTO archives to resolve plugin-added references

2018-12-03 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23935 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- The behaviors of with and without -ffat-lto-objects should be the same. Either both work or both don't. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _

[Bug ld/23935] [Regression] ld.bfd does not rescan fat LTO archives to resolve plugin-added references

2018-12-03 Thread vlad at ispras dot ru
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23935 --- Comment #5 from Vladislav Ivanishin --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4) > (In reply to Vladislav Ivanishin from comment #3) > > GCC does not tell it needs the printf symbol, because it's a builtin > > function > > (prog.c is compile

[Bug ld/23935] [Regression] ld.bfd does not rescan fat LTO archives to resolve plugin-added references

2018-12-03 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23935 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Vladislav Ivanishin from comment #3) > GCC does not tell it needs the printf symbol, because it's a builtin function > (prog.c is compiled without -fno-builtin). > Although printf is a builtin fun

[Bug ld/23935] [Regression] ld.bfd does not rescan fat LTO archives to resolve plugin-added references

2018-12-03 Thread amonakov at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23935 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gmail dot com -- You

[Bug ld/23935] [Regression] ld.bfd does not rescan fat LTO archives to resolve plugin-added references

2018-12-03 Thread vlad at ispras dot ru
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23935 Vladislav Ivanishin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|