From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-485096-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14389 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2015 13:58:37 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 14343 invoked by uid 48); 30 Apr 2015 13:58:33 -0000
From: "ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug lto/65559] [5/6 Regression] lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lto.c:2947
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:58:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: lto
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-65559-4-D637jGjRr2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65559-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65559-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg02648.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65559

--- Comment #22 from Kai Tietz <ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I will be able to test this tomorrow (or this evening) for a linux bootstrap.

Patch tested is:

Index: lto-wrapper.c
===================================================================
--- lto-wrapper.c       (Revision 222269)
+++ lto-wrapper.c       (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ run_gcc (unsigned argc, char *argv[])
          filename[p - argv[i]] = '\0';
          file_offset = (off_t) loffset;
        }
-      fd = open (argv[i], O_RDONLY);
+      fd = open (filename, O_RDONLY | O_BINARY);
       if (fd == -1)
        {
          lto_argv[lto_argc++] = argv[i];

Honza, Jakub, when regression-test passes is it ok to apply?
The O_BINARY change is pretty obvious, but the filename vs argv[i] change
should indeed affect other targets using the @<n> decoration, too.