From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27279 invoked by alias); 18 May 2011 00:01:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 27267 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2011 00:01:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 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; Wed, 18 May 2011 00:00:55 +0000 From: "ppryor63 at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/46072] AIX linker chokes on debug info for uninitialized static variables 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: major X-Bugzilla-Who: ppryor63 at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 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: Wed, 18 May 2011 00:49:00 -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: 2011-05/txt/msg01410.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072 --- Comment #29 from Paul Pryor 2011-05-17 23:49:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #28) > (In reply to comment #25) > > An upgrade to the AIX assembler has introduced a bug that can generate invalid > > object files. The is an AIX bug, not a GCC bug. > > I'm not yet convinced that this is the case. It could well be that the > assembler (or linker) is being more strict in how it interprets code. > > Does anyone here have the IBM XL compiler? It would be interesting to compare > the assembly that it produces (I presume it can be made to generate assembly > even if it normally emits object code directly) for the minimal test case to > GCC's. If you would look at comment #2, that is what I did.