https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
--- Comment #19 from Andrew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #18 from joe.harvell at netscout dot com ---
Sorry for the chatter...but I noticed the link command line had the same .o/.a
files multiple times (to satisfy order dependencies between them). When I
removed the duplicates and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #17 from joe.harvell at netscout dot com ---
It looks like this function is never called, by the way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #16 from joe.harvell at netscout dot com ---
Correction on the previous comment. I said
This function is defined in one .c file and declared with the extern keyword in
another .c file.
But in fact the extern declaration in the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
joe.harvell at netscout dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joe.harvell at netscout
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #14 from zenith432 at users dot sourceforge.net ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
>
> But the symbol in question won't be USED by lto1 at all.
Ok. I didn't completely check the logic for resolutions in ld.bfd so didn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to zenith432 from comment #12)
> Fair enough, it's a gold bug in the sense that gold's algorithm for
> selecting a prevailing def among multiple defs has an error.
> If an IR symbol has multiple
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #12 from zenith432 at users dot sourceforge.net ---
Fair enough, it's a gold bug in the sense that gold's algorithm for selecting a
prevailing def among multiple defs has an error.
If an IR symbol has multiple definitions as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to zenith432 from comment #10)
> Followup on what gold does...
This is a gold bug:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23411
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #10 from zenith432 at users dot sourceforge.net ---
Followup on what gold does...
First, it reads the symbol table from the archive (w/o using the plugin) - and
if it doesn't need any of the symbols in an LTO member of the archive -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #9 from zenith432 at users dot sourceforge.net ---
It is worth studying what gold is doing, because it's not just skipping the
object files in the archives.
If you link with
gcc -flto -save-temps -fuse-ld=gold -o x main.o libfoo.a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> It is to be consistent for common symbol linked against .a or .so.
That seems like a really strange reason because without --whole-archive there
are other ways to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> > When ld sees a common symbol, it will use a non-common definiton
> > in a library, .a or .so, to override it.
>
> This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #5)
> When ld sees a common symbol, it will use a non-common definiton
> in a library, .a or .so, to override it.
This is surprising, is it documented somewhere? I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> > It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition.
>
> Please elaborate - does ld.bfd try to extract
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition.
Please elaborate - does ld.bfd try to extract static archive members when it
already has a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #2)
> Note that Gold does not exhibit this issue. I think ld.bfd is at fault here.
It is because gold doesn't check archive for a common definition.
> We've hit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86490
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
19 matches
Mail list logo
