Re: bootstrap/3867: [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

Re: bootstrap/3867: [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[Tim Van Holder]

The following reply was made to PR bootstrap/3867; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
To: "'Dara Hazeghi'" <dhazeghi@yahoo.com>, <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>,
	<nobody@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:  
Subject: Re: bootstrap/3867: [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:30:59 +0200

 >
 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=g
 cc&pr=3867
 > 
 > Hi Tim,
 > 
 > you sent a patch to address this issue to gcc-patches quite a while  
 > back. What's the status? Was it ever applied? Thanks,
 > 
 > Dara
 
 I haven't heard much about this, and the gcc 3.2.3 tree still uses
 elf-centric
 assembler code (.4byte etc), so I assume this is still a problem (unless
 gas was changed to handle those opcodes for coff targets).
 
 

Re: bootstrap/3867: [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[Dara Hazeghi]

The following reply was made to PR bootstrap/3867; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com>
To: tim.van.holder@pandora.be, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: bootstrap/3867: [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 01:24:28 -0700

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit- 
 trail&database=gcc&pr=3867
 
 Hi Tim,
 
 you sent a patch to address this issue to gcc-patches quite a while  
 back. What's the status? Was it ever applied? Thanks,
 
 Dara
 

Re: bootstrap/3867: [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[Tim Van Holder]

The following reply was made to PR bootstrap/3867; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Tim Van Holder <tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
	nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: bootstrap/3867: [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in
	configure is broken
Date: 21 Nov 2002 08:58:15 +0100

 It's not a failure as such - configure merely finds the eh_frame
 optimization bug when it is not present.
 This is still the case in gcc 3.2; configure.in contains a piece
 of assembler code that uses .4byte and multiple arguments for
 .section.  Even when binutils 2.13 is used, those are NOT
 supported for coff targets (djgpp, mingw32), causing as to
 fail, and configure to assume the test failed.
 Using .long instead of .4byte and removing the extra arguments
 to .section results in an assembler file that gives the proper
 results for coff as well as ELF.
 
 The check for the linker's eh_frame header optimization is even
 more broken for those platforms, as it checks 4- and 8-byte
 alignments (using .${gc_WS}byte as pseudo-op); in that test it
 is not possible to simply replace .4byte by .long.
 
 Perhaps this is a binutils issue (perhaps as should treat .4byte
 as a synonym for .long for a COFF target, and silently ignore
 extra arguments for .section), but this has been causing gcc to
 misdetect eh_frame stuff on COFF platforms for quite a while now.
 
 -- 
 Tim Van Holder <tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
 

Re: bootstrap/3867: [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

[bangerth]

Old Synopsis: eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken
New Synopsis: [djgpp] eh_frame optimization check in configure is broken

State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Tue Nov 19 18:15:42 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    This is a rather old bootstrap failure report, and gcc3.0
    is no longer supported. Can you please check whether you
    can build a newer version of gcc on your platform and let
    us know about your findings?
    
    Thanks
      W.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=3867