Re: ld 2.17 internal error
Hi Will, Is this a known error, No. anything I can do to work round it? Maybe, but without more information it is hard to say. Try generating a map file (-M option to the linker). There should be an more informative error message put into this file which might suggest a workaround. Should I try the HEAD version of ld? Definitely. Any other information I can usefully supply? A bug report which includes a simple way to reproduce the problem would be really helpful. You can file a report here: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla Cheers Nick ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/4109] ld crash on broken object file
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-03-21 11:38 --- Created an attachment (id=1639) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1639&action=view) Add some checks for corrupt symbol table entries -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4109 --- 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/4109] ld crash on broken object file
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-03-21 11:40 --- Hi Sami, The attached patch stops the linker from seg-faulting with the test case you provided. It should now return an error code and these messages: ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 004000f0 ld: error: broken.o contains a reloc (0x006a0002) for section .text that references a non-existent global symbol ld: final link failed: Bad value I suspect however that if try you can find other ways for corrupt symbol table entries to break the linker code... Please let me know if the patch works for you. Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4109 --- 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/4110] Broken object file crashes nm
--- Additional Comments From sliedes at cc dot hut dot fi 2007-03-21 15:47 --- Created an attachment (id=1640) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1640&action=view) Test case Yes, that fixes that problem for that test case. I updated to HEAD and applied patch.4, now with the attached test case, I get a SEGV instead of "Memory exhausted" which I get with patch.3. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4110 --- 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/4218] objdump on AMD64 fails to decode prefixed 0x90 opcode properly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-21 15:49 --- 0x90 nop doesn't take a operand. There is no such an instruction: 41 90 xchg %r8, %rax Assembler will assembe "xchg %r8, %rax" as "49 90 xchg %rax,%r8". -- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl at lucon dot org Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4218 --- 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/4124] ustq wrong code generation
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-03-21 16:07 --- Hi Anton, I have applied your patch along with this ChangeLog entry. Cheers Nick gas/ChangeLog 2007-03-21 Anton Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PRT gas/4124 * config/tc-alpha.c (emit_ustX): Fix ustq code generation. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4124 --- 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/4218] objdump on AMD64 fails to decode prefixed 0x90 opcode properly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-21 16:18 --- I found the problem. I will fix it. -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|INVALID | http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4218 --- 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/4218] objdump on AMD64 fails to decode prefixed 0x90 opcode properly.
--- Additional Comments From fruffell at cs dot uwaterloo dot ca 2007-03-21 16:20 --- You are wrong, 0x41 0x90 is valid instruction, and your disassembler has a bug. Please understand the difference between the prefix 0x49 and 0x41: 0x49 -> rexB and rexW 0x41 -> rexB Therefore your instruction: 0x49 0x90 = exchange of %rax with %r8 rexB selects r8 rexW selects the full 64-bits The instruction in question: 0x41 0x90 = exchange of %eax with %r8d (bits 0-32) rexB select r8 default operand size remains at 32-bits The difference lies in the register sizes (%rax vs %eax, %r8 vs %r8d). Run the provided testcase, so that you can convince yourself that this instruction exchanges the lower 32-bits of %rax with the lower 32-bits of %rcx, and zero-extends the upper 32-bits of both registers. This is hardly a nop, as reported by your disassembler (regardless of what your assembler produces). In the future please be more thorough with your handling of bugs, as this is the second time I've been kind enough to file a detailed bug report with a testcase, only to incorrectly have it dismissed. My time is not free either, and my disassembler does not fail this testcase ;-) -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4218 --- 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/4110] Broken object file crashes nm
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-03-21 16:26 --- Created an attachment (id=1641) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1641&action=view) Improve error detection when a group section header's size field is corrupt -- What|Removed |Added Attachment #1623 is|0 |1 obsolete|| Attachment #1631 is|0 |1 obsolete|| http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4110 --- 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/4110] Broken object file crashes nm
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2007-03-21 16:29 --- Hi Sami, New patch uploaded. Now you should get a more reasonable error code from nm )Bad value) and the linker should not seg fault. Cheers Nick -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4110 --- 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/4218] objdump on AMD64 fails to decode prefixed 0x90 opcode properly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-21 19:18 --- Thanks for your bug report. I posted a patch at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-03/msg00268.html The new assembler/disassembler will now generate: 41 90xchg %eax,%r8d 66 41 90 xchg %ax,%r8w -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4218 --- 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/4218] objdump on AMD64 fails to decode prefixed 0x90 opcode properly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-03-21 20:45 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4218 --- 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/4110] Broken object file crashes nm
--- Additional Comments From sliedes at cc dot hut dot fi 2007-03-22 04:08 --- Created an attachment (id=1642) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1642&action=view) Test case Ok, one more, after quite a lot of testing. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4110 --- 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
