| Summary: | Assertion failure in coff_frob_symbol | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | binutils | Reporter: | Mikhail Glushenkov <foldr> |
| Component: | gas | Assignee: | Dave Korn <davek> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | asl, davek, nickc |
| Priority: | P2 | ||
| Version: | 2.21 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Host: | i686-pc-mingw32 | Target: | i686-pc-mingw32 |
| Build: | i686-pc-mingw32 | Last reconfirmed: | |
| Attachments: |
File that demonstrates the problem
Avoid truncation. |
||
|
Description
Mikhail Glushenkov
2010-10-27 20:49:52 UTC
Hi Michail, Please could you upload the file that demonstrates this problem. Sending it as an attachment does not work. :-( Cheers Nick Clifton Created attachment 5097 [details]
File that demonstrates the problem
Sorry, I thought that I've already done that. Created attachment 5100 [details]
Avoid truncation.
Assuming that the frob_symbol hook can't be called twice on the same symbol, which it looks like to me, then weak_altname2name is just being paranoid in thinking that the symbol might have already been uniquified, and weak_uniquify itself doesn't need to take any care to avoid re-uniquifying a name.
Mikhail, I guess that you ran into this problem while you were building a larger project of some sort? Could you test the suggested patch on top of current CVS and verify that it gets you to the end of your build without any odd side-effects showing up? I tried your patch, and it works for me. Thanks! I'm just going to run a gcc bootstrap-and-test cycle using binutils built with this patch and make sure nothing bad shows up before I check it in. Committed. |