On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 13:56 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 01:52:49PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > > This doesn't resolve the problem, unfortunately, because
> > > references to discarded comdat symbols are still kept in .rodata:
> > >
> > > `.text._ZN7testing15Asserti
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 01:52:49PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > This doesn't resolve the problem, unfortunately, because
> > references to discarded comdat symbols are still kept in .rodata:
> >
> > `.text._ZN7testing15AssertionResultlsIPKcEERS0_RKT_' referenced in
> > section `.rodata' of .
On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 14:05 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 13:27 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:03:26PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > > This is determined by default_elf_select_rtx_section (). If we
> > > don't
> > > want to mix non-reloc an
On Thu, 2022-04-28 at 13:27 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:03:26PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > This is determined by default_elf_select_rtx_section (). If we
> > don't
> > want to mix non-reloc and reloc constants, we need to define a
> > special
> > section there.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 01:03:26PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> This is determined by default_elf_select_rtx_section (). If we don't
> want to mix non-reloc and reloc constants, we need to define a special
> section there.
>
> It seems to me, however, that this all would be made purely for th
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 14:46 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 02:23:00PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > > I get a .LASANPC reloc there in the first place because of
> > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 02:23:00PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > I get a .LASANPC reloc there in the first place because of
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/gcc/patch/20190702085154.26981-1-...@linux.ibm.com/
> > but of c
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> I get a .LASANPC reloc there in the first place because of
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/gcc/patch/20190702085154.26981-1-...@linux.ibm.com/
> but of course it may happen for other reasons as well.
In that case I don't se
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 11:59 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 11:33 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:27:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-
> > patches wrote:
> > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux and
> > > s390x-red
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 11:33 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:27:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-
> patches wrote:
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux and
> > s390x-redhat-linux. Ok for master (or GCC 13 in case this doesn't
> > fit
> > stage4 criteria
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:27:49AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux and
> s390x-redhat-linux. Ok for master (or GCC 13 in case this doesn't fit
> stage4 criteria)?
I'd prefer to defer this to GCC 13 at this point.
Furthermore, doe
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-redhat-linux and
s390x-redhat-linux. Ok for master (or GCC 13 in case this doesn't fit
stage4 criteria)?
Building C++ template-heavy code with ASan sometimes leads to bogus
"defined in discarded section" linker errors.
The reason is that .rodata.FUNC.cstN s
12 matches
Mail list logo
