https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538
--- Comment #40 from hpa at zytor dot com <hpa at zytor dot com> --- On February 10, 2016 4:15:39 PM PST, "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzi...@sourceware.org> wrote: >https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 > >--- Comment #39 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- >(In reply to h...@zytor.com from comment #38) >> >> I suspect my changes to the linker script to make the LMA symbols >absolute >> might have fixed the header problem, but the small test case should >still >> show it. > >We may have more than one issues here: > >1. Without -pie, no dynamic symbols. I tried the small testcase with >binutils 2.25.2: > >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ >/export/build/gnu/binutils-misc/build-x86_64-linux/ld/ld-new -m >elf_i386 -Ttext >0 -Bdynamic -Bsymbolic -E -o test1.elf test1.o >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ >/export/build/gnu/binutils-misc/build-x86_64-linux/ld/ld-new -v >GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.25.2 >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ nm -Dn test1.elf >nm: test1.elf: no symbols > >There is no dynamic symbol either. > >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ > >2. With -pie, still doesn't work. Please tell me what is wrong in >the binary generated by 2.26. Yes, 1 really should be a separate enhancement PR. -- 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
