From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8743 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2008 19:42:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 7689 invoked by uid 48); 30 Sep 2008 19:41:17 -0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080930194117.7688.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug other/37463] [4.4 regression] All Solaris/x86 eh tests fail In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-09/txt/msg03068.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-30 19:41 ------- > I'm a bit unsure how to test this right now: what I find is that C objects > have read-only .eh_frame sections and use .cfi* directives, while C++, Java > and Ada objects have read-write .eh_frame sections and still use .eh_frame > sections directly emitted by the compiler. I think that we should assemble some C code with CFI directives and see whether the resulting .eh_frame is read-only; if so, HAVE_GAS_CFI_DIRECTIVE must be set to 0 instead of 1. This should discriminate between 2.18 and upcoming 2.19. That the non-C compilers still emit .eh_frame directly is unexpected I'd think. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37463