* [Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC
2010-09-09 10:28 [Bug bootstrap/45612] New: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-09-09 10:29 ` ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-09 11:09 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-09-09 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 10:29 -------
Created an attachment (id=21749)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21749&action=view)
assembler output
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC
2010-09-09 10:28 [Bug bootstrap/45612] New: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-09 10:29 ` [Bug bootstrap/45612] " ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-09-09 11:09 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-10 13:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-09-09 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-09 11:09 -------
This compiled fine on 20100907 for me.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC
2010-09-09 10:28 [Bug bootstrap/45612] New: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-09 10:29 ` [Bug bootstrap/45612] " ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-09 11:09 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-09-10 13:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-10 15:15 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-09-10 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC
2010-09-09 10:28 [Bug bootstrap/45612] New: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-10 13:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-09-10 15:15 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
2010-09-10 15:19 ` [Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on " ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE @ 2010-09-10 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-10 15:15 -------
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no
Solaris 2/SPARC
A reghunt identified that the regression was caused by this patch:
2010-09-07 Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
* tree-inline.c (tree_inlinable_function_p): Do not test
DECL_REPLACEABL
E_P.
* ipa-inline.c (cgraph_default_inline_p, update_caller_keys,
update_call
ee_keys,
cgraph_decide_inlining): Test function availability.
* cif-code.def (OVERWRITABLE): New code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on Solaris 2/SPARC
2010-09-09 10:28 [Bug bootstrap/45612] New: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-10 15:15 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
@ 2010-09-10 15:19 ` ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-12 13:06 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-17 8:56 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: ro at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-09-10 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-10 15:19 -------
Jan, could you please have a look.
--
ro at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Summary|[4.6 regression] Reference |[4.6 regression] Reference
|to undefined label building |to undefined label building
|libada no Solaris 2/SPARC |libada on Solaris 2/SPARC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on Solaris 2/SPARC
2010-09-09 10:28 [Bug bootstrap/45612] New: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-10 15:19 ` [Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on " ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-09-12 13:06 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-17 8:56 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-09-12 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-12 13:06 -------
*** Bug 45639 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Bug bootstrap/45612] [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on Solaris 2/SPARC
2010-09-09 10:28 [Bug bootstrap/45612] New: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada no Solaris 2/SPARC ro at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-09-12 13:06 ` danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-09-17 8:56 ` ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE @ 2010-09-17 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-09-17 08:55 -------
Subject: Re: [4.6 regression] Reference to undefined label building libada on
Solaris 2/SPARC
> ------- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-16 20:57 -------
> This is really strange case. The patch should at most introduce extra inlining
> that naturally should not introduce undefined symbols.
> It is used as:
> sethi %hi(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_-(.LL363-.)), %o3
> or %o3, %lo(_GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_-(.LL363-.)), %o3
> call gnat__debug_pools__put_line, 0
>
> so it is passed to gnat__debug_pools__put_line. Any idea what should be there?
> It does not seem like variable, rather like code label. Can I have
Unfortunately not; you'd have to ask one of the Ada maintainers. Eric
is on the Cc:, he might know.
> -fdump-tree-optimized (or perhaps better -fdump-tree-all) dumps?
Sure. I couldn't attach it to the PR (1.8 MB even compressed with
bzip2), so I've put it at
http://www.cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de/~ro/files/g-debpoo-dump-tree-all.tar.bz2
Thanks.
Rainer
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45612
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread