https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25585
--- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The binutils-2_34-branch branch has been updated by Alan Modra
:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=acc4a8b8ac83077819948126bc7501d35eb1ea74
commit acc4a8b8ac83077
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25585
--- Comment #2 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=7b3c27152b5695177a2cd5adc0d7b0255f99aca0
commit 7b3c27152b5695177a2cd5adc0d7b
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4499
Bug 4499 depends on bug 25585, which changed state.
Bug 25585 Summary: [2.34 Regression] error: PHDR segment not covered by LOAD
segment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25585
What|Removed |Add
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25585
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23947
Paul Pluzhnikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, I used the updated binutils to build a LTO project.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25585
Bug ID: 25585
Summary: [2.34 Regression] error: PHDR segment not covered by
LOAD segment
Product: binutils
Version: 2.35 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4499
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||25585
Referenced Bugs:
https://sourceware.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm the patch works.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 12310
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12310&action=edit
Please try this
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Versi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #65 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Please open a new bug.
Sure:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
Bug ID: 25584
Summary: ar and ranlib should not call lto-wrapper for LTO
bytecode
Product: binutils
Version: unspecified
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #64 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #63)
> I have one more question about the lto-wrapper usage: is there any reason
> why 'ar' and 'ranlib' also use it? It makes building of some packages
> significantly sl
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23947
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #63 from Martin Liška ---
I have one more question about the lto-wrapper usage: is there any reason why
'ar' and 'ranlib' also use it? It makes building of some packages significantly
slower.
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23765
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Lokesh Janghel from comment #3)
> Please let me know is it ok to go with this.
Sorry - I am not a maintainer for gold. You will need to ping Ian
and/or Cary .
Cheers
Nick
--
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23765
--- Comment #3 from Lokesh Janghel ---
Hi Nick,
The proposed patch from your side seems to be ok.
I have verified for the error generated without segmentation fault on the
latest trunk sources.
Please let me know is it ok to go with this.
--
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23765
Lokesh Janghel changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lokeshjanghel91 at gmail dot
com
--
22 matches
Mail list logo
