public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/40332] [4.5 Regression] (.eh_frame); no .eh_frame_hdr table will be created. Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:16:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20100217171549.15365.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-40332-6642@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> ------- Comment #13 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 17:15 ------- I reluctantly agree with Ian's comment in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00332.html that: "I think it would be troubling if a gcc release required a very new binutils release on a popular platform like x86_64." I actually think we should be unsympathetic to this kind of mixing of components. GCC is the only major compiler that does not consider the compiler, assembler, and linker to be a "single unit". We've made the problem harder for ourselves than it needs to be, for the dubious benefit that users can download a new GCC release without having to get a new assembler and linker. However, even though I think our policy is counterproductive, it is in fact our policy. We shouldn't change the policy by accident; we should change it through conscious decision. Until then, we should indeed to as Ian suggests and: "modify the configure test for gcc_cv_as_cfi_directive to avoid the problem when using an older binutils" -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P3 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40332
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-17 17:16 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2009-06-03 17:05 [Bug target/40332] New: " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-03 17:09 ` [Bug target/40332] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-03 17:14 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-09 8:34 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-09 8:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-09 8:54 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-09 9:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-09 10:26 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-09 10:52 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2009-06-20 17:56 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-01-17 18:56 ` gary at intrepid dot com 2010-01-18 14:42 ` [Bug target/40332] [4.5 Regression] " jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2010-01-20 18:53 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-17 17:16 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message] 2010-02-19 15:59 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-19 18:00 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 3:50 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-20 3:50 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20100217171549.15365.qmail@sourceware.org \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).