From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23234 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2011 18:45:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 23219 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jan 2011 18:45:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:45:18 +0000 From: "greed at pobox dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/40183] g++.dg/tls/static-1.C, execution abort X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: greed at pobox dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:13:00 -0000 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: 2011-01/txt/msg03432.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40183 Graham Reed changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |greed at pobox dot com --- Comment #3 from Graham Reed 2011-01-31 18:44:57 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > On SPARC, I only see this when configuring with gas and gld, which isn't > apparent in your g++ -v output. It looks like this is resolved with binutils-2.21. I used the gld from binutils-2.21 with the .o files produced by gas in binutils-2.20.1 and the gcc-4.5.2 compiler, and the tls/static-1.C test now passes. (Using gcc's -v feature to find out what the actual link command was; replacing collect2 with a direct call to ld seems to work well enough for this test.) I haven't tried x86-64 yet; I'm a bit short of CPU power on that one.