--- Comment #13 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-27 14:58 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
when binutils 2.20 branch is built with gcc-4.4 branch or trunk, I see the
following test failures in the ld testsuite. Checked with gcc-4.4 from
debian/testing, debian/unstable and
--- Comment #11 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-26 10:36 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #7)
I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section
anchors
on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures.
--- Comment #12 from kirill at shutemov dot name 2009-10-26 11:06 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Did it fix your binutils testsuite failures ?
Yes, it did.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |ramana at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684
--- Comment #10 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-10-16 15:16 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I'm currently bootstrapping and testing a patch which disable section anchors
on arm. It will be interesting to see if it fixes any testsuite failures.
Done. It caused no new failures but
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #7 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-10-15 14:12 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
A bisection has identified revision 139725 as the origin of this regression.
That revision added support for -fsection-anchors on arm and enabled it by
default at -O1 and above. Compiling with
--- Comment #8 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-10-15 14:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=18799)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18799action=view)
kludge to disable section anchors on arm for gcc-4.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684
--- Comment #9 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-15 15:17 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
A bisection has identified revision 139725 as the origin of this regression.
That revision added support for -fsection-anchors on arm and enabled it by
default
--- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-10-14 17:07 ---
A binary search through the gcc-4.4 snapshots has identified 4.4-20080822 as
the last good(*) snapshot and 4.4-20080829 as the first bad one.
(*) 4.4 snapshots around this time also cause the following failures:
--- Comment #3 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2009-10-14 17:24 ---
138206 2008-07-28 OK
2008-11-16 FAIL (gcc-snapshot build)
that looks consistent with my test builds; with the 2008-07-28 build the ld
testsuite passes without failures
--
--- Comment #4 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2009-10-14 21:21 ---
A binary search through the gcc-4.4 snapshots has identified 4.4-20080822 as
the last good(*) snapshot and 4.4-20080829 as the first bad one.
build in between fail for me with:
/opt/doko/gcc/139572/./gcc/xgcc
--- Comment #5 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2009-10-14 21:26 ---
looking at the interval there a three arm specific commits:
2008-08-23 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
2008-08-23 Sebastian Redl sebastian.r...@getdesigned.at
- r139509: exception propagation support
--- Comment #6 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-10-15 02:09 ---
A bisection has identified revision 139725 as the origin of this regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41684
--- Comment #1 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-10-13 22:02 ---
Confirmed. I've built binutils-2.19.1 and binutils-2.19.92 with gcc-4.3.4 (plus
loads of well-tested fixes) and gcc-4.4.1 vanilla on an armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
machine, and for both binutils versions using gcc-4.4.1
16 matches
Mail list logo
