Re: Possible bug with using "-static" and "-dynamic" on the same command
Hi Soeren, I tried to use a newer version of binutils (2.15.94 wich comes as part of a SLES upgrade to SP3 and a freshly self compiled 2.16.1) but both version now show me the following error when trying to compile a shared library: "-static and -shared may not be used together" This is an old bug which has now been fixed. Try downloading the latest sources from the binutils CVS repository, or if you prefer, wait a few weeks until the 2.17 release is officially made available. Cheers Nick ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
Re: internal error in bfd_cache_lookup_worker
Hi Eric, This bug appears on the second run of a command. I may be doing something BFD/GDB considers sneaky. Quite likely. First things first though - you have an old version of the BFD library. BFD 2.16.91 20050815 internal error, aborting at /SourceCache/gdb/gdb-477/src/bfd/cache.c line 517 in bfd_cache_lookup_worker Try building GDB with the most recent version of the BFD library that you can obtain (preferably today's from the binutil's CVS repository). If the problem still persists, then perhaps you could run gdb recursively and find out where in the bfd_cache_lookup_worker() the problem is occurring. It would also help if you were able to put together a small, self contained test case, so that we could investigate ourselves. Cheers Nick ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
Re: AIX 5.1 objcopy copy problem in 64 bit mode.
Hi Henrik, objcopy -G main temp/AIX/to_be_fixed.o temp/AIX/test.o; ld: 0711-590 SEVERE ERROR: Object test.o cannot be processed. The length field at the beginning of the string table is invalid. I have downloaded binutils 2.16.1 and have configured it with "./configure --enable-64-bit-bfd" Are there anything else I could try? Try checking out the latest binutils sources from the CVS repository. It is possible that this bug has already been fixed. If not, then please could you open an official bug report and include a test case which reproduces the problem ? (A copy of the corrupt test.o file would also help as we could examine it ourselves to see what has happened to the string table). Cheers Nick ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
Re: [Bug gprof/2776] New: Strange profiling results
Hi Dmitry,
void f (int n)
{
rdtscll (t);
void g (int n)
{
gettimeofday (&tv, 0);
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int n;
for (n = 0; n < 200; n++) {
if (n % 2)
f (n);
else
g (n);
My typical results are:
$ gcc -O2 -g -pg -o test test.c
$ gprof test | head -n 10
Flat profile:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds secondscalls ms/call ms/call name
95.85 0.40 0.40 100 4.03 4.03 f
4.79 0.42 0.02 100 0.20 0.20 g
Have you checked the assembler output of the compiler ? Perhaps it is
being clever. Maybe it knows that all but the calls to gettimeofday are
redundant ?
What about main(), is any time spent in that function ?
Also it appears that the two percentages above add up to more than 100%.
The most likely though is that bad profiling data is being generated.
ie it is not gprof's fault but either gcc's (for not inserting the calls
to the profiling hooks correctly) or else the run time C library's (for
not implementing the profiling hooks correctly). Check you version of
gcc. If it is an old one, then try updating it. If it is a new one,
then try using an older one and see if the problem goes away.
Cheers
Nick
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gprof/2776] Strange profiling results
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-06-22 14:03
---
Subject: Re: New: Strange profiling results
Hi Dmitry,
> void f (int n)
> {
> rdtscll (t);
> void g (int n)
> {
> gettimeofday (&tv, 0);
> int main (int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int n;
>
> for (n = 0; n < 200; n++) {
> if (n % 2)
> f (n);
> else
> g (n);
> My typical results are:
>
> $ gcc -O2 -g -pg -o test test.c
> $ gprof test | head -n 10
> Flat profile:
>
> Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
> % cumulative self self total
> time seconds secondscalls ms/call ms/call name
> 95.85 0.40 0.40 100 4.03 4.03 f
> 4.79 0.42 0.02 100 0.20 0.20 g
Have you checked the assembler output of the compiler ? Perhaps it is
being clever. Maybe it knows that all but the calls to gettimeofday are
redundant ?
What about main(), is any time spent in that function ?
Also it appears that the two percentages above add up to more than 100%.
The most likely though is that bad profiling data is being generated.
ie it is not gprof's fault but either gcc's (for not inserting the calls
to the profiling hooks correctly) or else the run time C library's (for
not implementing the profiling hooks correctly). Check you version of
gcc. If it is an old one, then try updating it. If it is a new one,
then try using an older one and see if the problem goes away.
Cheers
Nick
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2776
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gprof/2776] Strange profiling results
-- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2776 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/2809] ld incorrect applies LTOFF22X/LDXMOV relocations
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2006-06-22 14:33 --- The range of GP relocation is from -0x20 to 0x20. -99976/-0x18688 is within the range. The relative offsets between sections have to be fixed within shared library and executable. Otherwise, linker can't resolve local references. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2809 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/2768] readelf and segmented addresses in DWARF2/3 aranges
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-06-22 14:36 --- Hi Stephane, Thanks for supplying the test cases. I have now been able to reproduce the problem and I am going to upload a patch that fixes it. If you would care to try it out and let me know if you encounter any problems I would be most grateful. Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2768 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/2768] readelf and segmented addresses in DWARF2/3 aranges
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-06-22 14:38 --- Created an attachment (id=) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=&action=view) Compute address size as sum of pointer size and segment size -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2768 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/2768] readelf and segmented addresses in DWARF2/3 aranges
-- What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2768 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gprof/2776] Strange profiling results
--- Additional Comments From dmantipov at yandex dot ru 2006-06-22 14:55 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Have you checked the assembler output of the compiler ? Perhaps it is > being clever. Maybe it knows that all but the calls to gettimeofday are > redundant ? Strace shows a lot of gettimeofday() calls during execution of the first test program above. Moreover, I've checked an annotated assemler output produced with '-fverbose-asm' by gcc 4.0.2 and gcc 4.1.1 and found that even with '-O3', the code is assembled 'as is', i.e. at least: - rdtsc and gettimeofday() aren't eliminated - loops aren't unrolled > What about main(), is any time spent in that function ? Flat profile doesn't include data for main(), i.e. it contains f() and g() only. But the call graph shows something for main() too, for example: index % timeself childrencalled name [1]100.00.000.50 main [1] 0.490.00 100/100 f [2] 0.010.00 100/100 g [3] --- 0.490.00 100/100 main [1] [2] 98.00.490.00 100 f [2] --- 0.010.00 100/100 main [1] [3] 2.00.010.00 100 g [3] Assembler output says that mcount() is called from main(), so main() should be accounted too. On the other side, it's possible that main() is just too fast even for 1 profiling sample (all SIGPROFs was handled when we're in f() or g() ?). I believe this is another question for you - why main() isn't included into flat profile :-) ? > Also it appears that the two percentages above add up to more than 100%. Yes, this is strange. > The most likely though is that bad profiling data is being generated. > ie it is not gprof's fault but either gcc's (for not inserting the calls > to the profiling hooks correctly) or else the run time C library's (for > not implementing the profiling hooks correctly). Check you version of > gcc. If it is an old one, then try updating it. If it is a new one, > then try using an older one and see if the problem goes away. I'll try a few versions of older gcc, starting from gcc 3.2... -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2776 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/2756] m68k-linux still has #APP/#NO_APP issue
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-06-22 15:45 --- Hi Lior, Please could you supply a small test case that reproduces the problem ? I do not want to change a generic part of the assembler without being sure that it will not break other ports. Cheers Nick -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2756 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/2757] broken linker script keyword
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-06-22 16:19 --- Hi Alex, This is a known problem with the linker. It cannot link PE files and convert to BINARY format at the same time. You will need to link to a PE format file first and then use OBJCOPY to convert it to BINARY format afterwards. Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||WONTFIX http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2757 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/2755] respect LIBPATH_SUFFIX when not using sysroot
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-06-22 16:29 --- Hi Mike, Can you supply a testcase to demonstrate the problem please ? Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2755 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/2750] ld has problem with -shared, and GDB, SUN solaris 10 X86 (amd)
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-06-22 16:46 --- Hi Tan, It is not clear that this is actually just a linker problem. It may also be a compiler problem (producing bad debug info which is then reported by GDB with the "DW_FORM_strp point outside of" message). Have you tried using the current version of the binutils sources from the mainline of the binutils CVS repository ? You may find that these sources are able to resolve the problem. If you find that the problem is still there, please could you put together a *small* testcase that reproduces the problem ? Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2750 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/2729] ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault]
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-06-22 17:42 --- Hi Martin, Thanks for the test case. I can now reproduce the problem and I am uploading a patch which will prevent the seg fault. As it stands however the patch will still prevent the linker from completing successfully. I think that this is the right thing to do, since the DataDictionary has not been fully constructed. Please could you try out the patch and let me know if you have any problems with it. The problem is the missing .idata$4 section. It is needed (and the unpatched linker was assuming that it was always there). I am not sure why it is missing though, and it may not be important. If you want to, try changing the "result = FALSE" statements in the patch to "result = TRUE" and see if the resulting linked executable actually works. Cheers Nick -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2729 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/2729] ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault]
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-06-22 17:43 --- Created an attachment (id=1112) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1112&action=view) Cope with missing .idata sections when building DataDictionary -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2729 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/2729] ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault]
--- Additional Comments From mkoeppe at gmx dot de 2006-06-22 22:08 --- Hi Nick, (In reply to comment #5) > Created an attachment (id=1112) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1112&action=view) > Cope with missing .idata sections when building DataDictionary is this the complete patch? It does apply and build, but ld segfaults nevertheless. :-( (In reply to comment #4) > If you want to, try changing the "result = > FALSE" statements in the patch to "result = TRUE" and see if the resulting > linked executable actually works. Where do I find these statements? Martin -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2729 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/2754] ld segfaults when using --warn-unresolved-symbols with /dev/null
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-06-23 03:19 --- http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils-cvs/2006-06/msg00149.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2754 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
