This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: *-rtems and binutils 2.14.92
Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com> writes:
> So it looks to me that it is a comparison on INT_MIN which is blowing
> up. Which is confirmed by this:
>
> #include <limits.h>
> int f( int s )
> {
> if ( s == INT_MIN )
> return 1;
> return 0;
> }
>
> which also blows up the same way. binutils or gcc bug? :)
Since this is apparently being produced by pure C code with no inline
assembler, it is arguably a gcc bug. Still these issues are always
tricky. After all, --1 is well defined if '--' is not an operator.
For gas to start rejecting it is dubious. On the other hand, for gcc
to generate it is also dubious.
I would lean toward it being a gcc bug. Try filing a bug report in
the gcc bugzilla database.
Ian