From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4734 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2003 05:27:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4712 invoked by uid 48); 26 Jul 2003 05:27:03 -0000 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030726052703.4711.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "aj at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030725091122.11669.aj@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20030725091122.11669.aj@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/11669] [3.4 regression] Calling of static functions does not work (build of glibc broken) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg03080.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11669 aj at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | ------- Additional Comments From aj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-26 05:27 ------- GCC changes behaviour and breaks in this way GCC and GDB. For single-file mode the behaviour should not be changed. I agree that for multiple-file mode, the usage of asm ("fixup") is the right way but let's not force this for single-file - and it was already agreed on the mailing lists that this should be changed back. Therefore I'm reopening the bug.