From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 68912 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2015 15:42:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 68897 invoked by uid 89); 22 Apr 2015 15:42:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail.rt-rk.com Received: from mx2.rt-rk.com (HELO mail.rt-rk.com) (89.216.37.149) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:42:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.rt-rk.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFA51A23E7; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:42:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.rt-rk.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.rt-rk.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with LMTP id btYU3DdCb0VH; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:42:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rtrkn137 (rtrkn137.domain.local [192.168.236.60]) by mail.rt-rk.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 673A51A2225; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:42:24 +0200 (CEST) From: "Petar Jovanovic" To: "'Maciej W. Rozycki'" Cc: , , References: <005001d07c5a$8c9e9b90$a5dbd2b0$@rt-rk.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH v3][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: <004301d07d12$ee45f5b0$cad1e110$@rt-rk.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg01328.txt.bz2 -----Original Message----- From: Maciej W. Rozycki [mailto:macro@linux-mips.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:52 PM To: Petar Jovanovic Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Catherine_Moore@mentor.com; Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][MIPS] fix CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION macro > I think this will best be > reduced to a link-only test on bare iron, hoping for a link failure. I am not sure how we can reduce the test to a link failure (today), if ld will not report an error (today). What exactly is wrong with the run time test as is in the last patch? As of ld issue you have mentioned, it has been reported - see BZ#18297 [1]. Regards, Petar [1] BZ#18297, https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18297