[Bug ld/32246] Should DT_NEEDED entries from a needed DSO be added?

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32246 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ld/32246] New: Should DT_NEEDED entries from a needed DSO be added?

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32246 Bug ID: 32246 Summary: Should DT_NEEDED entries from a needed DSO be added? Product: binutils Version: 2.44 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 C

[Bug binutils/32244] strip should deal with all architectures

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32244 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug binutils/32244] strip should deal with all architectures

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32244 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab --- Just configure with --enable-targets=all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug gprofng/32241] gprofng can't be built with LTO

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32241 --- Comment #14 from 藍挺瑋 --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10) > Created attachment 15731 [details] > A patch > > Try this. Thank you. This patch fixes the build for me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list f

[Bug binutils/32243] NAME_MAX does not exist on mingw-w64 without the define of _POSIX_ macro

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32243 --- Comment #1 from cqwrteur --- Created attachment 15732 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15732&action=edit patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/32244] strip should deal with all architectures

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32244 cqwrteur changed: What|Removed |Added CC||euloanty at live dot com -- You are recei

[Bug binutils/32244] New: strip should deal with all architectures

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32244 Bug ID: 32244 Summary: strip should deal with all architectures Product: binutils Version: 2.44 (HEAD) Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P2

[Bug binutils/32243] NAME_MAX does not exist on mingw-w64 without the define of _POSIX_ macro

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32243 cqwrteur changed: What|Removed |Added Host||x86_64-w64-mingw32 CC|

[Bug binutils/32243] New: NAME_MAX does not exist on mingw-w64 without the define of _POSIX_ macro

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32243 Bug ID: 32243 Summary: NAME_MAX does not exist on mingw-w64 without the define of _POSIX_ macro Product: binutils Version: 2.44 (HEAD) Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug gprofng/32241] gprofng can't be built with LTO

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32241 --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #12) > That works (doesn't fix the runtime test issue though, so I guess that's > something different). Thanks. ... which is obvious now I think about it, given the other

[Bug gprofng/32241] gprofng can't be built with LTO

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32241 --- Comment #12 from Sam James --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10) > Created attachment 15731 [details] > A patch > > Try this. That works (doesn't fix the runtime test issue though, so I guess that's something different). Thanks. --

[Bug gprofng/32241] gprofng can't be built with LTO

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32241 --- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab --- I think dbe_memmgr should be removed, and replaced by xmalloc/xrealloc from libiberty. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.