https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69429
--- Comment #2 from joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se <joakim.tjernlund at transmode dot se> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Why do you file this against gcc? If anything, it is related to binutils, You are right, I though it was a gcc problem because I downgraded binutils to 2.24 but not I ses I only thought I did so. > which is separate project. But, I'd say it is not a bug nevertheless, > sparse files are an optimization, if you want to force no use of sparse > files, you'd just always get the larger ones. If using tar doesn't preserve > holes in sparse files, use other means of copying them. Well, it breaks and tar cannot handle these sparse files and I think a lot of packing tools uses tar. I cannot change to something else on my targets as there is only tar installed I found this binutils 2.15.x commit: https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commitdiff;h=9059a151e33f2f9b7b989a22e63d711a2c8a335b;hp=6e7e69e72dc1c53c8d5a8794c845026c48ff343a (Set ppc COMMONPAGESIZE to 64k) I do wonder why it now became necessary to increase page size in binutils?
