--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 09:06 ---
-fno-inline-functions should probably be -fno-inline. -f[no-]inline-functions
is semantically a no-op (it just tunes some params).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40249
--- Comment #5 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 10:56 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
-fno-inline-functions should probably be -fno-inline. -f[no-]inline-functions
is semantically a no-op (it just tunes some params).
Thanks! Superficial testing (adding that option, diffing
--- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 19:30 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
-fno-inline-functions should probably be -fno-inline. -f[no-]inline-functions
is semantically a no-op (it just tunes some params).
I've verified that is a fix, but it is counter to the
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 03:24 ---
This sounds like either an as bug or a bug in the target back-end accepting
some memory address it should not.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-26 04:42 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This sounds like either an as bug
An expression that is the difference between two *other* sections is not
regularly allowed for ELF targets...
or a bug in the target back-end accepting
some
