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