From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7998 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2002 11:26:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7983 invoked by uid 71); 8 Aug 2002 11:26:05 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 04:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020808112605.7982.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Zagorodnev, Grigory" Subject: RE: other/7535: GCC configuration problem: failed to correctly de tect hidden attribute support Reply-To: "Zagorodnev, Grigory" X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR other/7535; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Zagorodnev, Grigory" To: "'nathan@gcc.gnu.org'" , "'gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org'" , "'gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org'" , "Zagorodnev, Grigory" , "'nobody@gcc.gnu.org'" , "'gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org'" Cc: Subject: RE: other/7535: GCC configuration problem: failed to correctly de tect hidden attribute support Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:20:16 +0400 > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > State-Changed-By: nathan > State-Changed-When: Thu Aug 8 03:57:17 2002 > State-Changed-Why: > This is a binutils bug. From gcc's configure.in > # GNU LD versions before 2.12.1 have buggy support for > STV_HIDDEN. > # This is irritatingly difficult to feature test for. Look for > # the date string after the version number. > binutils after 2.12.1 are known good Few lines below, same gcc's configure.in does try to test 'hidden' feature of binutils older then 2.12.1. As far as I understand, this checking is failing. Is'n it?