https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
--- Comment #6 from Fabian Vogt fab...@ritter-vogt.de ---
If sjlj exceptions are not supported for ARM, shouldn't the configure option be
invalid for ARM or at least print a warning?
If an option does exist and it simply crashes the compiler
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Just don't do silly things.
Just because an option exists doesn't mean you need to use it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
--- Comment #8 from Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #6)
If sjlj exceptions are not supported for ARM, shouldn't the configure option
be invalid for ARM or at least print a warning?
If an
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
--- Comment #4 from Fabian Vogt fab...@ritter-vogt.de ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #2)
It crashes and produces weird results if linked to bFLT.
Yes because EABI is an elf only abi, if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Why are you trying to compile with SJLJ exceptions? The unwinding tables on
arm are part of the EABI.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Vogt fab...@ritter-vogt.de ---
It crashes and produces weird results if linked to bFLT.
If SJLJ isn't supported for ARM, why does --enable-sjlj-exceptions still exist?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60691
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #2)
It crashes and produces weird results if linked to bFLT.
Yes because EABI is an elf only abi, if it does not have a place for the unwind
