Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

On 31/01/18 15:44, Cory Fields wrote: After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to proceed. As of now, static and static-pie are mutually exclusive. So given the GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC you pasted earlier, "static" matches before "static-pie", causing the wrong st

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:58:31AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Cory Fields wrote: > >> After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to > >> proceed. > >> > >> As of now, static and static-pie a

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 11:33:22AM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 31/01/18 15:44, Cory Fields wrote: > >After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to > >proceed. > > > >As of now, static and static-pie are mutually exclusive. So given the > >GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

Original message From: Rich Felker Date: 02/02/2018 18:32 (GMT+00:00) To: Szabolcs Nagy Cc: li...@coryfields.com, "H.J. Lu" , n...@arm.com, GCC Development Subject: Re: -static-pie and -static -pie On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 11:33:22AM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:

Debugging optimizer problems

Hi I am confronted with a classical problem: a program gives correct results when compiled with optimizations off, and gives the wrong ones with optimization (-O2) on. I have isolated the probem in a single file but now there is no way that I can further track down the problem to one of the

Re: Debugging optimizer problems

* jacob navia: > I have in my small C compiler introduced the following construct: > > #pragma optimize(on/off,push/pop) Not sure what you are after. GCC has something quite similar:

Re: Debugging optimizer problems

Le 02/02/2018 à 22:11, Florian Weimer a écrit : * jacob navia: I have in my small C compiler introduced the following construct: #pragma optimize(on/off,push/pop) Not sure what you are after. GCC has something quite similar:

gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

Hello, I'm trying to switch from g++ 5.4 to g++ 7.2. GDB 8.0.1 however does not understand RTTI generated by g++7.2, so my Python scripts for GDB are not working. Here is a code example: struct base { virtual ~base(){} }; template< int IVAL, unsigned UVAL, unsigned long long ULLVAL> struct der

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Roman Popov wrote: > Hello, > I'm trying to switch from g++ 5.4 to g++ 7.2. > GDB 8.0.1 however does not understand RTTI generated by g++7.2, so my > Python scripts for GDB are not working. > > Here is a code example: > > struct base { virtual ~base(){} }; > > te

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 2018-02-02 22:17, Roman Popov wrote: Hello, I'm trying to switch from g++ 5.4 to g++ 7.2. GDB 8.0.1 however does not understand RTTI generated by g++7.2, so my Python scripts for GDB are not working. Here is a code example: struct base { virtual ~base(){} }; template< int IVAL, unsigned U

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

Yes, problem is still there in g++7.3 / gdb 8.1. I wonder why they decided to emit different strings to RTTI and debug info? What is the technical reason behind this? -Roman 2018-02-02 20:54 GMT-08:00 Simon Marchi : > On 2018-02-02 22:17, Roman Popov wrote: > >> Hello, >> I'm trying to switch f

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

2018-02-02 20:54 GMT-08:00 Simon Marchi : > > GCC changed how it outputs unsigned template parameters in the debug info > (from 2u to just 2), and it doesn't look like it's going to change it > back. So I suppose we'll have to find a way to make GDB deal with it. > Simon > I'm not so sure about