* [Bug other/49665] 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks
2011-07-06 23:48 [Bug other/49665] New: 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-07 6:51 ` amodra at gmail dot com
2011-07-07 9:51 ` amodra at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-07 6:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2011.07.07 06:51:19
CC| |amodra at gmail dot com
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|gnu.org |
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> 2011-07-07 06:51:19 UTC ---
There are some really weird things going on here that make me think this is a
linker bug rather than a gcc bug. Assigning to myself to save others wasting
time on the PR.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug other/49665] 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks
2011-07-06 23:48 [Bug other/49665] New: 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-07 6:51 ` [Bug other/49665] " amodra at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-07 9:51 ` amodra at gmail dot com
2011-07-07 17:42 ` [Bug c++/49665] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: amodra at gmail dot com @ 2011-07-07 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
AssignedTo|amodra at gmail dot com |unassigned at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com> 2011-07-07 09:50:54 UTC ---
So, looks like a gcc bug after all. There are four files with a certain group
example.s: .section
.text._ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD2Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD5Ev,comdat
example.s: .section
.text._ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD0Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD5Ev,comdat
soplex.s: .section
.text._ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD2Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD5Ev,comdat
soplex.s: .section
.text._ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD0Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD5Ev,comdat
spxbasis.s: .section
.text._ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD2Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD5Ev,comdat
spxbasis.s: .section
.text._ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD0Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD5Ev,comdat
spxsolver.s: .section
.text._ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD2Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD5Ev,comdat
spxsolver.s: .section
.text._ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD0Ev,"axG",@progbits,_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD5Ev,comdat
In each of these files this group contains two sections, with the code for
_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD0Ev and _ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD2Ev in them. In just one file,
spsbasis.o, there is an alias for _ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD2Ev.
.weak _ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD1Ev
.set _ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD1Ev,_ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD2Ev
When the group in spsbasis.o is dropped, _ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD1Ev has no proper
definition.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/49665] 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks
2011-07-06 23:48 [Bug other/49665] New: 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-07 6:51 ` [Bug other/49665] " amodra at gmail dot com
2011-07-07 9:51 ` amodra at gmail dot com
@ 2011-07-07 17:42 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-09 19:48 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
` (5 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-07 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|other |c++
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-07 17:41:24 UTC ---
> In each of these files this group contains two sections, with the code for
> _ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD0Ev and _ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD2Ev in them. In just one file,
> spsbasis.o, there is an alias for _ZN6soplex8SPxBasisD2Ev.
Hmm, if there is an set in one of the files but not the others, then there is
something wrong in general. Is the code violating ODR?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/49665] 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks
2011-07-06 23:48 [Bug other/49665] New: 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-07 17:42 ` [Bug c++/49665] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-09 19:48 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-07-10 18:43 ` [Bug other/49665] " pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: markus at trippelsdorf dot de @ 2011-07-09 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |markus at trippelsdorf dot
| |de
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de> 2011-07-09 19:47:15 UTC ---
This looks like a dup of bug 49538 that just got fixed
by a recent commit of Jason:
commit dabebf7ecc90b59b0603d2428cf465fe1f0d642b
Author: jason <jason@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
Date: Sat Jul 9 03:33:44 2011 +0000
gcc/
* cgraph.c (cgraph_add_to_same_comdat_group): New.
* cgraph.h: Declare it.
* ipa.c (function_and_variable_visibility): Make sure thunks
have the right visibility.
gcc/cp/
* method.c (use_thunk): Use cgraph_add_to_same_comdat_group.
* optimize.c (maybe_clone_body): Likewise.
* semantics.c (maybe_add_lambda_conv_op): Likewise.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@176071
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug other/49665] 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks
2011-07-06 23:48 [Bug other/49665] New: 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-09 19:48 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
@ 2011-07-10 18:43 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-07-10 19:09 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-10 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c++ |other
--- Comment #5 from Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-10 18:43:28 UTC ---
The problems still exist in r176125, although looks like a couple from soplex
went away but a couple new ones for omnetpp showed up.
soplex:
`soplex::SPxBasis::~SPxBasis()' referenced in section
`.data.rel.ro._ZTVN6soplex8SPxBasisE[vtable for soplex::SPxBasis]' of
spxbasis.o: defined in discarded
section `.group' of spxbasis.o
`soplex::SPxLP::~SPxLP()' referenced in section
`.data.rel.ro._ZTVN6soplex5SPxLPE[vtable for soplex::SPxLP]' of spxlp.o:
defined in discarded section `.grou
p' of spxlp.o
omnetpp:
`cStdDev::~cStdDev()' referenced in section `.data.rel.ro._ZTV7cStdDev[vtable
for cStdDev]' of libs/sim/cstat.o: defined in discarded section `.group' of
libs/sim/cstat.o
`cStatistic::~cStatistic()' referenced in section
`.data.rel.ro._ZTV10cStatistic[vtable for cStatistic]' of
libs/sim/std/netpack.o: defined in discarded section `.group' of
libs/sim/std/netpack.o
`cEqdHistogramBase::~cEqdHistogramBase()' referenced in section
`.data.rel.ro._ZTV17cEqdHistogramBase[vtable for cEqdHistogramBase]' of
libs/sim/std/netpack.o: defined in discarded section `.group' of
libs/sim/std/netpack.o
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug other/49665] 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks
2011-07-06 23:48 [Bug other/49665] New: 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-10 18:43 ` [Bug other/49665] " pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-07-10 19:09 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2011-07-14 17:19 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: markus at trippelsdorf dot de @ 2011-07-10 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de> 2011-07-10 19:08:14 UTC ---
Another thing you might check is to revert the commit
pointed out here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49533#c5
and see if this makes any difference.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug other/49665] 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks
2011-07-06 23:48 [Bug other/49665] New: 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-10 19:09 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
@ 2011-07-14 17:19 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-13 15:07 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-13 16:17 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-07-14 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-14 17:19:10 UTC ---
Yes, if I remove the patch for r174989 then both benchmarks build without
error.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug other/49665] 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks
2011-07-06 23:48 [Bug other/49665] New: 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-07-14 17:19 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-09-13 15:07 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-13 16:17 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-09-13 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-13 14:56:55 UTC ---
Can you, please, check that the bug is fixed now?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* [Bug other/49665] 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks
2011-07-06 23:48 [Bug other/49665] New: 'defined in discarded section' link failures on cpu2006 benchmarks pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-13 15:07 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-09-13 16:17 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
8 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-09-13 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49665
Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Pat Haugen <pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-13 16:10:47 UTC ---
Yes, this is fixed with your patches for pr49533.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread