Bug 432185

The low and high limits are not swapped, the range is signed, and the value is
of course out of range.  Can you please attach preprocessed source for the file
on which this is reported (and exact g++ command line options used to trigger it)?

(In reply to comment #1)
> The low and high limits are not swapped, the range is signed, and the value is
> of course out of range.
Ah, I see would help if the limits didn't get printed in hex then, then a human
would actually be able to recognize they are signed, but thats not the issue here.

  Can you please attach preprocessed source for the file
> on which this is reported (and exact g++ command line options used to trigger it)?

Erm, I can do that on x86_64 or i386, but not on ppc where this happens as I've
no access to ppc hardware. I'm not sure a preprocessed file from a different
platform is going to be very helpfull.

What might be important to know is that the file in question is a language
binding for python generated by swig.

If this is ppc64, then this is similar to #427700, though maybe different reason
why it now needs slightly more .got1 entries than it used to need with 4.1.
In any case the primary problem is that so big generated single CU is simply
excessively large for what ppc64 can handle.  So, you need to disable some
inlining to get it back under the limit.

(In reply to comment #3)
> If this is ppc64, then this is similar to #427700, though maybe different reason
> why it now needs slightly more .got1 entries than it used to need with 4.1.

This is not ppc64 but plain ppc, ppc64 is ExcludeArch for this package for
different reasons. Also notice that _exactly_ the same errors happen when
building for F-8, which AFAIK uses gcc-4.1 out of the box?

> In any case the primary problem is that so big generated single CU is simply
> excessively large for what ppc64 can handle.  So, you need to disable some
> inlining to get it back under the limit.

Okay, I'm willing to give this a try, can this be done by passing some options (
-ffoo-bar ) to gcc, or do I need todo something else, and in that case what do I
need todo?

Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA.
More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

I've tried working around this by adding -fno-inline-small-functions at the end
of CFLAGS, but that didn't help, any other ideas how to work around this?

This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 9.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '9'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.