From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29126 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 22:36:01 -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 29109 invoked by uid 71); 4 Feb 2003 22:36:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030204223601.29108.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Robert Schiele Subject: Re: c++/9265: exception handling faulty wenn linking PIC objects to non PIC ones Reply-To: Robert Schiele X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/9265; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Robert Schiele To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: cc@pi3.informatik.uni-mannheim.de, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, Andreas Jaeger Subject: Re: c++/9265: exception handling faulty wenn linking PIC objects to non PIC ones Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 23:28:27 +0100 --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 03:19:06PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Cannot reproduce this, works just fine with > gcc version 3.2.1 20021207 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2.1-2) > GNU ld version 2.13.90.0.16 20021126 Thanks for checking this. > You obviously cannot mix crt* files between different gcc builds, This is perfectly clear to me. I did this only to track the problem down. Now, after I had the first report from someone with recent binutils where it was not reproducable, I did some further research and found that it seems to be a SuSE specific problem either with the shipped glibc or with some vendor patches on binutils. I compared SuSE 8.1 to Mandrake 9.0 that have both gcc-3.2, binutils-2.12.90.0.15 and glibc-2.2.5. SuSE has the bug, Mandrake not. So the problem seems to have been introduced by a SuSE specific change to either binutils or glibc. Andreas: This is the reason, why I have put you in CC again. So, from my point of view, we can close this bug here and I will do further discussions about this issue in the SuSE bugzilla. Robert --=20 Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2517 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBPkA+isQAnns5HcHpAQGx2wf/dIe+eJDSrQlz0Y0U4j7PMJ8Ht9HqxBZm UYy7ujIL530tN1YOidPebdu9oWBpR6Ixjxk/q8UZ6kQpKtSxPPeogYMYJF7c/Yak yB1Ih4gC8heUTD1LeKjWOSP3Jg8rIR44V9puy5uAgqFjJnZeyNrDKr1knkL+6FJR WqeSAApQzDt2QICUQJAPmVOw7LY0MXsTVpNjw7gqZhmAiJemY/F7C9lC1IsSs2V8 5RCvx5orUnbeMkIwXrgZ5cF1gYSZ/e29INojAqNZPOdHkQ+N/zI3h2Bs/ZI3Z4cT 4pecuHJTqZU455nNvNh5UCvqUr2UPTkG1V/hQ3McvlmERRwlqU19Ug== =UFPd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz--