https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17447
Bug ID: 17447
Summary: .eh_frame_hdr table[5707] FDE at 0000000000c45b8c
overlaps table[5708] FDE at 0000000000c45a88
Product: binutils
Version: 2.25 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: nheghathivhistha at gmail dot com
libOpenCL.so.1.0.0 of Mesa 10.3.0 tried to be built on top of LLVM 3.5.0 with
gcc-4.9.2 prerelease or gcc-5.0 alpha cannot be linked by GNU ld (Gentoo
2.24.51) 2.24.51.20140923 (vanilla Gentoo ebuild, dump from git head). Message
from ld is .eh_frame_hdr table[5707] FDE at 0000000000c45b8c overlaps
table[5708] FDE at 0000000000c45a88
for gcc-4.9.2-pre and
.eh_frame_hdr table[5712] FDE at 0000000000c45788 overlaps table[5713] FDE at
0000000000c45684
for gcc 5.0 svn rev. 215679, both for LTO enabled and disabled.
With Gentoo vanilla binutils-2.24-r3 with Markus's patch for slim LTO and patch
to warn about non-existence of LTO plugin and patch highlited by Emil Velikov
in
his comment #3 in Mesa bug report #84242:
https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/trunk/binutils-2.24-shared-pie.patch?h=packages/binutils&id=47bdd59a9967ee8dd2bcc47797855185c6471546
it builds without any error.
There exists an Ubuntu bug report about this:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/arb/+bug/1371636
and I created a Mesa bug report
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84242
where Emil Velikov wrote that for him it works and pointed out patch he is
using.
In binutils git head the patch is present, as are the LTO plugins patches:
patch -p1 < ../../binutils-2.24-shared-pie.patch
patching file ld/emultempl/elf32.em
Hunk #1 FAILED at 1480.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 1504.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 1620.
3 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file ld/emultempl/elf32.em.rej
The next patch would create the file ld/testsuite/ld-elf/ehdr_start-shared.d,
which already exists! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n] n
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
patching file ld/testsuite/ld-elf/ehdr_start-userdef.d
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] patch: tty
read failed: Bad file descriptor
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file
ld/testsuite/ld-elf/ehdr_start-userdef.d.rej
patching file ld/testsuite/ld-elf/ehdr_start-weak.d
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file
ld/testsuite/ld-elf/ehdr_start-weak.d.rej
patching file ld/testsuite/ld-elf/ehdr_start.d
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
Skipping patch.
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file
ld/testsuite/ld-elf/ehdr_start.d.rej
For Kai (comment #1 on Mesa bug report #84242 ) it fails the same way on:
"My stack is (base: Debian Testing):
libdrm: 2.4.56-1
LLVM: SVN:trunk/r218506 (3.6 snapshot)
libclc: Git:master/5b48f170c8
Mesa: Git:master/c3f17bb18f
GCC: 4.9.1-14 (gcc (Debian 4.9.1-14) 4.9.1)
autoconf: 2.69-8
libtool: 2.4.2-1.10
binutils: 2.24.51.20140903-1"
and NOT fails with binutils 2.24.51.20140818-1
(his comment #8 on Mesa bug report #84242:
"
After downgrading binutils to 2.24.51.20140818-1 (the version I've used in the
successful build of Mesa 5a4e0f3873), and also downgrading gcc (+ all libraries
from the gcc-4.9 package Mesa needs) to 4.9.1-12, because later gcc packages
require newer binutils versions, I was able to build even the version I
attempted to build yesterday (Mesa c3f17bb18f)
In no build I had LTO activated.
"
Am I wrong or is this really problem with binutils?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
