This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
At 16:40 07.05.2002, Mark Mitchell wrote: >--On Tuesday, May 07, 2002 03:14:49 PM +0200 Franz Sirl ><Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> wrote: > >>At 14:45 07.05.2002, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: >>> > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> >>> > >>> > >> Can you try the attached patch? It seems to work for me, but the >>> > >> bootstrap hasn't completed yet. While I was at it, I improved the >>> > >> placing of the warning messages. I'm still a bit confused, cause it >>> > >> sometimes seems olddecl and newdecl appeared to be swapped >>> > >> compared to their sourcefile ordering. >>> > > >>> > > FYI, bootstrap+regtest on x86-linux-gnu completed successfully. >>> > >>> > OK; once you have confirmation of the SPARC results go ahead and >>> > check it in. >>> >>>Unfortunately, the patch did not solve the problem listed in the PR. >>>I still get the same 'as' errors from compile/20011119-2.c >>> >>>compile/20011119-2.c:3: warning: weak declaration of `foo' after first >>>use results in unspecified behavior >>>/usr/ccs/bin/as: "/var/tmp//ccQOIg1d.s", line 51: error: invalid operand >>>--------------------------------------------------^^^^^ >> >>Yeah, I managed to get access to a solaris-2.8 machine, even though I >>wasn't able to bootstrap with Solaris as/ld (see below), I was able to >>reproduce the failure. Re-checking on x86-linux-gnu revealed that it even >>doesn't fix the problem there, so I must have mixed something up >>yesterday. Frankly, I'm a bit at a loss here, cause I've tried several >>strategies yesterday and they either didn't fix the testcase or caused >>some of the weak tests to fail. Especially I tried to use the TREE_USED >>flag of the WEAK_DECLS TREE_LIST to mark when a weak already had been >>assembled, but it didn't work out :-(. I seem to misunderstand something >>about how the tree structures are handled. > >I'll look into this problem. FYI, this is the patch I'm currently playing with, it would fix 20011119-2, but these fail: FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-3.c scan-assembler weak[^ ]*[ ]ffoo1b FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-3.c scan-assembler weak[^ ]*[ ]ffoo1c FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-3.c scan-assembler weak[^ ]*[ ]ffoo1e FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-5.c scan-assembler weak[^ ]*[ ]vfoo1b FAIL: gcc.dg/weak-5.c scan-assembler weak[^ ]*[ ]vfoo1c I don't understand what I'm doing wrong :-(. Franz.
Attachment:
gcc-weaksym-9x1.patch
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |