From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32197 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2003 05:04:56 -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 32146 invoked by uid 48); 9 Apr 2003 05:04:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 05:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030409050456.32126.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, lucier@math.purdue.edu, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: rth@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: rth@gcc.gnu.org, bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, lucier@math.purdue.edu, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/10326: [3.2/3.3/3.4] regression: relocation truncated to fit error on alpha X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: [3.2/3.3/3.4] regression: relocation truncated to fit error on alpha State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: rth State-Changed-When: Wed Apr 9 05:04:56 2003 State-Changed-Why: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-04/msg00202.html I'm fairly sure this shouldn't be considered a gcc bug at all, but rather a binutils bug. Yes, there are things that the compiler could do to make things better, but I'd consider that an optimization rather than necessary for correctness. Attached a minimal test case. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10326