https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
Bug ID: 86435
Summary: -fsemantic-interposition does not appear to have any
effect
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86421
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86421
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
--- Comment #2 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1)
> Without -fpic, f1 is considered not interposable.
That's an odd assumption. ld can interpose the definition with -z muldefs,
after all.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab ---
But the assembler is allowed to resolve the reference directly without the
possibility for interposition.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86435
--- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3)
> But the assembler is allowed to resolve the reference directly without the
> possibility for interposition.
Hmm. The assembler would still produce a relocatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86220
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86167
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86330
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85855
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tomastrnka at gmx dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86416
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86262
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85534
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||simon.kluepfel at gmail dot com
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86248
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86268
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86417
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> Caused/exposed by revision r262442.
Thanks for the info, Dominique.
The following patch seems to be sufficient to fix the regression:
Index:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86433
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42047
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44566
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52082
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58489
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77510
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61807
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Status|UNCONFIRMED
is also about ICF, but there are only free standing functions.
Used platform was Debian Stretch AMD64, the GCC versions tested:
$ g++-7.3.1 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-7.3.1
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/7.3.1/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86436
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
The reason Foldable are not folded is because Foldable<0> and Foldable<42>
clases are different. Yes they have the same layout but for aliasing rules
they are different.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83192
--- Comment #2 from Vivek Rao ---
Using GNU Fortran (GCC) 8.0.1 20180408 (experimental) from equation.com the
code now compiles, so there may have been a bug in their previous build. I
suggest closing this report.
29 matches
Mail list logo