From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-408622-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27015 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2012 15:34:43 -0000
Received: (qmail 25607 invoked by uid 48); 3 Dec 2012 15:34:18 -0000
From: "rth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug bootstrap/55571] [4.6/4.7/4.8 regression] PR48076 fix broke bootstrap on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:34:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical
X-Bugzilla-Who: rth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.4
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: AssignedTo
Message-ID: <bug-55571-4-dPEAPtfJgn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55571-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55571-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55571

Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |rth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |

--- Comment #5 from Richard Henderson <rth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-03 15:34:18 UTC ---
I think Jakub's idea is a bit overkill.  We're just in need of a
barrier, and we ought to be able to get one.  Perhaps we should
be linking libgcc_s.so itself against the static libgcc?

Although I can't recall why we're placing the __sync functions
in the static library in the first place.  It's not like they're
required to be unique.  I guess I'll have to dig that out of the
mail archives...