This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [BUG] Regression in 2.14.90 (relative to 2.13.90)


On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:10:51AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:40:10PM +0100, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 11:14:59AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > But sending bug reports to binutils@sources.redhat.com is just as
> > > good.  It's up to you.
> > 
> > Ok, thanks.
> > 
> > On 17 October I mailed this list about a bug in
> > binutils 2.14.90.  I was wondering what has
> > happened with this report.  Maybe it was lost,
> > this being just a mailinglist etc.
> > 
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-10/msg00456.html
> 
> The change is intentional. The testcase looks normal to me since
> the discarded function is identical to the remained. Is there a
> problem with gdb? Please follow
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2003-06/msg00471.html
> 

I took a look at the original bug report:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-10/msg00657.html

The issue here is 2 functions have the same size, but slightly
different. I don't think we can solve all those link-once debug
problems without SHT_GROUP.


H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]