[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 --- Comment #10 from Rich Felker --- Was this ever fixed? I've been using -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections by default for a long time now so it dropped off my radar.

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 --- Comment #7 from Rich Felker --- I agree that the PC-relative relocation in the literal pool is acceptable and what the compiler should be doing. However, the form of the expression the compiler puts in the assembly output does not actually ge

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 --- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw --- Oh, and another point; since this is a function symbol, not a data symbol, it can't be subject to a copy relocation at run time, so even protected symbols should be acceptable here.

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 --- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw --- This particular case is a very specific situation. A definition of foo is guaranteed to exist (you've provided one); but it can be overridden. The definition (due to the use of hidden) has to exist in th

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 --- Comment #4 from Rich Felker --- Well the binutils side seems to think it's a GCC bug to generate relative address expressions like this; at least that's the response I got when I reported it for sh. See the binutils bug linked in the original

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 --- Comment #2 from Rich Felker --- FYI a workaround for this and similar bugs, for users who are unable to upgrade once it's fixed, is to always use -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections. This inhibits the assembler's "optimization" differences be

[Bug target/68178] [arm] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68178 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target|