https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #20 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #17)
> A point raised on https://reviews.llvm.org/D89687 is that "undefined-symbol"
> is more appropriate than "missing-symbol": the symbol is present, just
> "undefi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #19 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=93cf38c095afbee84ed580c431d001f20442f73e
commit 93cf38c095afbee84ed580c431
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i at maskray dot me
--- Comment #18 fr
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
Fangrui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maskray at google dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #16 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Serge,
Right - I have checked in the patch. I removed the third argument for the
missing-symbol option. You were right - it is not needed.
I wanted to check the patch in so that it does not get
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #15 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=23ae20f5e3afeeab9aa616c63ab3b357668476d5
commit 23ae20f5e3afeeab9aa616c63a
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to sguelton from comment #13)
> I've been giving extra thoughts to the missing-symbol sub command. Why would
> you pass the file where the missing symbol was found? Do you have any
> specific sce
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #13 from sguelton at redhat dot com ---
I've been giving extra thoughts to the missing-symbol sub command. Why would
you pass the file where the missing symbol was found? Do you have any specific
scenario in mind? I wonder if passin
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #12898|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #11 from sguelton at redhat dot com ---
Thanks for the patch!
I didn't provide the implementation of `missing-symbol` for lld, I'll sync with
yours.
Small notes: whatever the result of the error handling script (especially when
it
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #12896|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #9 from sguelton at redhat dot com ---
Something like that maybe (on good ol' RHEL7)?
```
#!/usr/bin/bash
if [ "x$1" != xmissing-lib ]
then
# silently error
exit 1
fi
lib="$2"
pkgs=$(yum provides "*/lib$lib.so" 2>/dev/null
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to sguelton from comment #7)
> For testing, something as simple as
True - but I know that you have a more complete script stashed somewhere,
and I want to make sure that it really does work with
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #7 from sguelton at redhat dot com ---
For testing, something as simple as
```
#!/bin/sh
echo "script: info: called with $*"
```
should do the trick :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 12896
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12896&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Serge,
Here is a prototype of a patch to implement this feature. Would you mind
gi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this ma
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Serge,
I am going to have a go at implementing this feature.
Would you mind uploading an example script that I can use for testing
purposes ?
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #4 from sguelton at redhat dot com ---
For reference, I've added a documentation of the expectation for the error
handling script in https://reviews.llvm.org/D87758
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list fo
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #3 from sguelton at redhat dot com ---
I Like the idea. I'll update the LLVM review to reflect that.
For starters, lets focus on `normalizing' missing-library.
I agree with
missing-symbol foo
--
You are receiving this mail b
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
--- Comment #1 from sguelton at redhat dot com ---
For reference, cross posted to https://reviews.llvm.org/D87758
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26626
sguelton at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Provide a hook to customize |Provide a hook to customiz
23 matches
Mail list logo
