From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. J. Lu" Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 21:01:11 +0000 Subject: Re: heads up: apparent GAS bug in current (CVS) binutils Message-Id: <20050513210111.GB31069@lucon.org> List-Id: References: <200505122155.j4CLteGX024882@napali.hpl.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <200505122155.j4CLteGX024882@napali.hpl.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 01:59:06PM -0700, David Mosberger wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:50:04 -0700, "H. J. Lu" said: > > HJ> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 01:34:10PM -0700, David Mosberger wrote: > >> >>>>> On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:32:19 -0700, "Lu, Hongjiu" > >> said: > > HJ> I tried binutils 2.15.92.0.2 20040927 and got the same > HJ> result. What is the version of assembler which you think is > HJ> good? > >> The standard Debian/sarge as seems fine: > > >> $ as -v GNU assembler version 2.15 (ia64-linux) using BFD version > >> 2.15 > > HJ> As I have mentioned before, it is an IPF specific kernel issue. > HJ> Basically, when you use weak functions, unwind info may be > HJ> wrong. I am enclosing an updated kernel patch. > > I agree that this is weird code that needs to be fixed, preferably by > not using weak functions at all (as Andreas suggested). > > However, there still seems to be a binutils issues here: if this is > something binutils cannot properly support, it should issue an error, > not silently generate wrong code, no? I will see what I can do. H.J.