https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #83 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Fri Apr 13 08:02:15 2018
New Revision: 259364
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259364&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c with Solaris ld (PR lto/81968)
PR lto/81
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #81 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #79 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
[...]
>> Since trying to fix the initial issue is out of scope for G
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #82 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #80 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #78)
>> Created attachment 43917 [details]
>> Proposed patch for gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c failure
>
> O
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #80 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #78)
> Created attachment 43917 [details]
> Proposed patch for gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c failure
OK. Can you add a comment as to why we do that? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #79 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #77 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #78 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 43917
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43917&action=edit
Proposed patch for gcc.dg/debug/pr41893-1.c failure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #77 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
> Waiting for Solaris engineer input... (or a machine to be able to debug this
> directly - is there one on the CF?).
We're finally getting t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86-*-solaris2 |*-*-solaris2.11
--- Comment #76 from Raine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #75 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #74 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
>> --- Comment #73 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE > dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
>> It *does* FAIL on Solaris 11/SPARC, j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #74 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #73 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #73 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #69 from Richard Biener ---
> So if sparc*-solaris is clean the priority can be lowered since x86-solaris is
> neither primary nor secondary. Making it P3 to not complete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #72 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #66 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #63)
>> --- gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-11 17:48:53.498068316 +0100
>> +++ gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-13 10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #71 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #64 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> Are the remaining issues only related to .debug_macro, or other stuff too?
>
> The LTO testsuite is clean on SPARC/Solaris 10 for me (GNU as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #70 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #63 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Are the remaining issues only related to .debug_macro, or other stuff too?
> If only .debug_macro, does:
> --- gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-11
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|*-*-solaris2|x86-*-solaris2
Priority|P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #68 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #67)
> On March 26, 2018 2:46:08 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
> wrote:
> >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
> >
> >--- Comment #66 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #67 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On March 26, 2018 2:46:08 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
>--- Comment #66 from Jakub Jelinek ---
>(In reply to Jakub Jeline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #66 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #63)
> --- gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-11 17:48:53.498068316 +0100
> +++ gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-13 10:58:03.477514623 +0100
> @@ -28282,6 +28282,7 @@ output_macinfo (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #65 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #62 from Richard Biener ---
> Waiting for Solaris engineer input... (or a machine to be able to debug this
I'll send it along shortly: just didn't manage to in time befo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #64 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Are the remaining issues only related to .debug_macro, or other stuff too?
The LTO testsuite is clean on SPARC/Solaris 10 for me (GNU as + Solaris ld) but
Rainer's testing exercises more combinations, in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #63 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Are the remaining issues only related to .debug_macro, or other stuff too?
If only .debug_macro, does:
--- gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-11 17:48:53.498068316 +0100
+++ gcc/dwarf2out.c 2018-03-13 10:58:03.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #62 from Richard Bi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #61
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #60 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Jan 11 12:12:39 2018
New Revision: 256528
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256528&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-11 Richard Biener
Rainer Orth
PR lto/819
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #59 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #58 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
[...]
>> [I'm continuing this with examples from a build using gas 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #58 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #57 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #57 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #56 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
[...]
> I can reproduce that with -ffat-lto-objects where indeed we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #56 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #55 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #55 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #54 from Richard Biener ---
> Created attachment 43075
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43075&action=edit
> Updated patch with SHT_GROUP and extended
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43074|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #53 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43073|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #51 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 43073
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43073&action=edit
Updated patch with SHT_GROUP and extended section index handling
Tested on the big testcase, otherwise untest
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #50 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #49 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>> Indeed. I've just attached an updated patch that does just that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #49 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #48 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>>
>> --- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #47 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
[...]
>> that should have been used as the reloc section for the new section 2.
>> I see sh_info is still
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #43013|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #45 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>>
>> --- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42563|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #43 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #42 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #42 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #41 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
>> Unfortunately not: it's really the section index pointing to the
>> non-existing (i.e. eliminated) .gnu.debuglto_.debug_info
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #41 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #40 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #39 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
>> * On x86, of the previous 32 ld: fatal: has invalid sh_info errors, 16
>> are now gone.
>>
>> However, I've many (1284 in g++.log
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #39 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #38)
> >> --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de
> >> ---
> > [...]
> >>>* Invalid sh_info:
> >>>
> >>>FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr42987 cp_lto_pr4298
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #38 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
>> --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> [...]
>>>* Invalid sh_info:
>>>
>>>FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr42987 cp_lto_pr42987_0.o-cp_lto_pr42987_1.o link,
>>>-flto
>>>-flto-partiti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #37 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 42998
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42998&action=edit
Merged patches for PRs pr81968 and 83452
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #36 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> For simplicity you might want to elide the partial link step by patching it
> out
> of lto-wrapper. Does Solaris / SPARC use the linker plugin? You at least seem
I'll give it a try.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #35 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
>>* Invalid sh_info:
>>
>>FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr42987 cp_lto_pr42987_0.o-cp_lto_pr42987_1.o link,
>>-flto
>>-flto-partition=none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 21, 2017 3:30:45 PM GMT+01:00, "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
>--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On December 21, 2017 4:20:35 PM GMT+01:00, "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
>--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
Here are the additional types of failures found on Solaris/x86:
* Invalid sh_info:
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr42987 cp_lto_pr42987_0.o-cp_lto_pr42987_1.o link, -flto
-flto-partition=none -g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
I'm having a look at what's still going wrong with Eric's updated
patch. On Solaris/SPARC, there are only two failures left:
FAIL: g++.dg/lto/pr51567-1 cp_lto_pr51567-1_0.o-cp_lto_pr51
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #29 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > It does by removing the SHT_NULL sect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #29 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It does by removing the SHT_NULL sections. The patch should work - you
> can double-check - it just doesn't handle the "corner case" of more
> than 32000 input sections correctly when rewriting the symbo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42225|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #27 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It does by removing the SHT_NULL sections. The patch should work - you
> can double-check - it just doesn't handle the "corner case" of more
> than 32000 input sections correctly when rewriting the symbo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > See the attached patch - it misses SH
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou ---
> See the attached patch - it misses SHN_XINDEX handling. I'll come back to
> this during stage3 if nobody beats me to it.
But AFAICS it doesn't deal with the SHT_NULL thing, does it?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |major
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> Eric Botcazou changed:
>
>What|Removed |Add
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Testcase (takes a bit too long / time for the testsuite):
#define F(i) int F ## i () { return i; }
#define FS(x) F(x ## 0) F(x ## 1) F(x ## 2) F(x ## 3) F(x ## 4) F(x ## 5) F(x
## 6) F(x ## 7) F(x ## 8) F(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 42225
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42225&action=edit
patch to really remove discarded sections
The attached removes discarded sections and thus should avoid one c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
>>That worked just fine, thanks.
>>
>>While there are still ld warnings
>>
>>ld: warning: file /var/tmp//ccmgPmhadebugobjtem: s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #18 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 42196
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42196&action=edit
Hacky workaround
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On September 15, 2017 5:02:36 PM GMT+02:00, "ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE" wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
>--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
> Thanks for the detailed analysis. Indeed
>
> /* Mark sections as preserved that are required by to be preserved
> sections. */
> f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Sep 15 12:11:13 2017
New Revision: 252807
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252807&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-09-15 Richard Biener
PR lto/81968
* simple-ob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #14 from Richard Biener ---
Thanks for the detailed analysis. Indeed
/* Mark sections as preserved that are required by to be preserved
sections. */
for (i = 1; i < shnum; ++i)
{
...
if (sh_type == SHT_SYMTAB)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
[...]
>> Why does Solaris ld output warnings by default? Does it have an
>> option to suppress them? It doesn't seem that it considers them
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #12 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 17:32:46 2017
New Revision: 252589
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252589&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-28 Richard Biener
PR lto/81968
* simple-obje
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Aug 31 11:21:40 2017
New Revision: 251560
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251560&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-31 Richard Biener
PR lto/81968
* simple-ob
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #9)
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
> >
> > --- Comment #8 from ro at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
[...]
> Thanks. Can you check whether the above patch resolves the ex
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 28 13:14:28 2017
New Revision: 251384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-28 Richard Biener
PR lto/81968
* simple-obj
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
> --- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
> On August 25, 2017 4:14:05 PM GMT+02:00, "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE"
[...]
>>My reading is different and corroborates the So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 25, 2017 4:14:05 PM GMT+02:00, "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
>--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
>>collect2: fatal error: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation
>>Fault]
>>compilation terminated.
>>ld: warning: file /var/t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
[...]
> They are created that way to make my life easier. They are supposed to be
> valid
> ELF objects and they are according to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On August 24, 2017 4:18:45 PM GMT+02:00, "ro at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
>
>Bug ID: 81968
>Summary: [8 regression] early lto
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
87 matches
Mail list logo