http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #7 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-22
10:40:34 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Thu Mar 22 10:40:31 2012
New Revision: 185685
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185685
Log:
Backport from mainline r185259.
PR other/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-12
18:22:08 UTC ---
Author: gjl
Date: Mon Mar 12 18:22:01 2012
New Revision: 185259
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185259
Log:
PR other/52545
* output.h (SECTION_EXCLUDE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #5 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-03-09
21:30:54 UTC ---
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM, gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
>
> --- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
> 20:27:42 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
20:27:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Right, I was not looking at SECTION_MACH_DEP when I defined the macro. Is it
> ok
> to just bump SECTION_MACH_DEP?
>
> The patch I have in mind is:
>
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #3 from Sriraman Tallam 2012-03-09
19:36:21 UTC ---
Right, I was not looking at SECTION_MACH_DEP when I defined the macro. Is it ok
to just bump SECTION_MACH_DEP?
The patch I have in mind is:
-#define SECTION_MACH_DEP 0x200 /* s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
--- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-03-09
19:21:09 UTC ---
...and here is the change:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=179288
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52545
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
