https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On August 25, 2017 4:14:05 PM GMT+02:00, "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81968 > >--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec >dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- >> --- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot >de> --- >[...] >>>collect2: fatal error: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation >>>Fault] >>>compilation terminated. >>>ld: warning: file /var/tmp//ccOFDEXadebugobjtem: section [1] has >>>invalid type [ >>>SHT_NULL ] >>>ld: warning: file /var/tmp//ccOFDEXadebugobjtem: section [5] contains >>>both >>>SHF_EXCLUDE and SHF_ALLOC flags: SHF_EXCLUDE ignored >[...] >>>Clearly a SEGV isn't the best error handling, and I'm not yet certain >>>if the >>>errors >>>are benign. OTOH, I don't yet know why the objects are created this >>>way. >> >> They are created that way to make my life easier. They are supposed >to be valid >> ELF objects and they are according to the specs and my >interpretation. > >My reading is different and corroborates the Solaris ld warnings: > >* for SHT_NULL, the ELF gABI 4.1 is pretty explicit: > > p. 4-13, p.57: > > SHT_NULL > > This value marks the section header as inactive; it does not > have an associated section. Other members of the section > header have undefined values. Yep, exactly as intended. Those sections are removed, their section table entry is thus inactive. They are not removed from there because changing section indices requires rewriting relocation section data. >* SHF_EXCLUDE is a later addition, also included in the Solaris Linker > and Libraries Guide: > > >http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E53394_01/html/E54813/chapter6-94076.html#OSLLGchapter6-10675 > > SHF_EXCLUDE > > This section is excluded from input to the link-edit of an executable > or shared object. This flag is ignored if the SHF_ALLOC flag is also > set, or if relocations exist against the section. Intended. The SHF_ALLOC flag is probably spurious, eventually added by gas? Can you dump the section header of the affected section? > This is identical to the wording in the binutils PR which introduced > this flag: > > PR gas/11600: > Support SHF_EXCLUDE > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11600 > >Seems far from clear to me that those are valid ELF objects: the >warnings seem totally appropriate. About the flag mixing probably yes. Do you have an idea what it segfaults on? OpenSolaris should have the source available? > Rainer
