From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 66AEA3858CDB; Wed, 31 May 2023 22:35:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 66AEA3858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685572543;
	bh=5IMoLifRcdipuR/LboK5Y5I+A0x12wmdKni7fVYDWaE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=NblGiBCDmbZp5WZmsYAUO/cjDnlgEICNWWbaGmZLURS5cS5UKQydeqP+BzokILYDD
	 Y4dC22o11ieve+1lY3P3a53RyrwzWuXzxiQyzVPceu7tz/yEIGSJ9Uxw0qJ3swPsOH
	 YKuOhFwnqaHdgQoS4iHQMVG1PnhwjCWpHTO3iykY=
From: "i at rvalue dot moe" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/110066] [RISC-V] Segment fault if compiled with -static
 -pg
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 22:35:41 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: i at rvalue dot moe
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110066-4-QrhaUfwhZ2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110066-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110066-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110066

--- Comment #3 from rvalue <i at rvalue dot moe> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> This also could be a glibc issue.

I tried gcc 12.2.1 and 13.1.1 with exactly the same glibc and binutils
environments, the 12.2.1 version works while 13.1.1 doesn't. So I decide to
report it here.

Further analysis found that the identifier __EH_FRAME_BEGIN__ is different =
from
the address of .eh_frame section by 0x10, which is unexpected. I suspect the
linker might fail but that didn't change between the two runs.=