[Bug ld/6519] __start_SECNAME undocumented
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 09:00 --- Created an attachment (id=2745) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2745&action=view) Document the linker's ability to generate section start and end symbols -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6519 --- 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/6511] segmentation fault building final object
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 09:09 --- Created an attachment (id=2746) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2746&action=view) Check for a NULL return from elf_link_hash_lookup -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6511 --- 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/6511] segmentation fault building final object
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 09:10 --- Hi Frediano, It would be very helpful if you could submit a small test case that reproduces the problem for us. In the meantime I have uploaded a small patch which adds a check for a NULL return from elf_link_hash_lookup. Would you like to try it out ? Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6511 --- 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/6519] __start_SECNAME undocumented
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 09:03 --- Hi Daniel, Well the NEWS entry is wrong in two respects. Firstly the linker does not just generate the symbols, it PROVIDEs them. So if they are not used elsewhere in the executable they will not be entered into the symbol table. Secondly the linker only provides these symbols for orphaned sections, not for others. So the uploaded patch amends the NEWS entry and updates the documentation. Are you happy with this ? I also considered adding a few tests to the linker testsuite, but I am not sure if it is really worth the effort. Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6519 --- 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/2834] Linker reports error "X referenced in section '.rodata' of foo.o: defined in discarded section X of foo.o" with g++ 3.3
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 09:43 --- Hi Bert, If you need to link objects compiled with an old (unfixed) gcc, why not use an old set of binutils as well ? The problem with trying to patch the current binutils is that essentially it would be to support buggy behaviour and this introduces bugs into the current linker. Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2834 --- 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/6483] objdump -g does not understand the debug info
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 10:05 --- Hi Chris, I assume that your objection is that you feel that the -g command line option should fall back on displaying DWARF debug information if no STABS debug information is found ? If so then please could you try out the uploaded patch and let me know what you think ? Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6483 --- 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/6483] objdump -g does not understand the debug info
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 10:03 --- Created an attachment (id=2747) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2747&action=view) Allow -g to fall back on -W. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6483 --- 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/6446] Handling of EF_FRV_PIC
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 10:32 --- Created an attachment (id=2748) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2748&action=view) Set EF_FRV_PIC by default (for FDPIC). Clear it if any inter-segment relocations are found -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6446 --- 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/6430] --sort-common Not Implemented Per Documentation
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 11:00 --- Hi Evandro, Right - I have checked in your documentation patch. (Sorry about the delay in getting to this). Do you have a patch to implement the new user-choice-of-sorting algorithm, or is there really no need for this now that the documentation is correct ? Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430 --- 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/6446] Handling of EF_FRV_PIC
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 10:34 --- Subject: Re: New: Handling of EF_FRV_PIC Hi Guys, > Another bug found by inspection. The ABI says: > > The linker should warn and clear EF_FRV_PIC when linking > FDPIC binaries if it finds any inter-segment relocation, and set it > otherwise. > > But in fact the linker sets EF_FRV_PIC if it sees any inter-segment > relocations. I have uploaded a patch to this PR which I think might correct the linker's behaviour, but I am not familiar with FDPIC on the FRV so I may well have made a mistake. Would you guys care to take a look at it ? > There's hardcoded checks for files named "crt0.o" directly above that, too. I am not sure about whether this is important or not, so I have the special case code in. Cheers Nick -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6446 --- 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/6019] [avr] avr-ld --relax requires --gc-sections
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 11:23 --- Hi Eric, Please can you provide a test case for this ? Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6019 --- 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/868] bfd leaks memory in several places
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 12:04 --- Hi Andre, Thanks for the additional patch. I have now applied it to the sources. Cheers Nick -- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=868 --- 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/6519] __start_SECNAME undocumented
--- Additional Comments From drow at sources dot redhat dot com 2008-05-21 12:07 --- I didn't realize this was only done for orphaned sections. I suppose it's harder to do for things mentioned in the linker script, and there's an obvious way to do it manually - in keeping with the verbose and precise nature of GNU linker scripts. I've been tossing around ideas for a less verbose format, possibly for gold which already works well without one... Meanwhile, for this bug. I'm not sure about editing the NEWS entry since the current behavior may be more recent than 2.6. But the manual change looks perfect to me. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6519 --- 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
Re: [Bug ld/6519] __start_SECNAME undocumented
Hi Daniel, Meanwhile, for this bug. I'm not sure about editing the NEWS entry since the current behavior may be more recent than 2.6. But the manual change looks perfect to me. Tell you what - I'll check in the change to the manual as-is and add an addendum to the NEWS entry describing how the feature is now implemented, in case other people read that far back in the NEWS file. Cheers Nick ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6519] __start_SECNAME undocumented
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 12:10 --- Subject: Re: __start_SECNAME undocumented Hi Daniel, > Meanwhile, for this bug. I'm not sure about editing the NEWS entry since the > current behavior may be more recent than 2.6. But the manual change looks > perfect to me. Tell you what - I'll check in the change to the manual as-is and add an addendum to the NEWS entry describing how the feature is now implemented, in case other people read that far back in the NEWS file. Cheers Nick -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6519 --- 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/6519] __start_SECNAME undocumented
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 12:17 --- Patch checked in. -- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6519 --- 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/6519] __start_SECNAME undocumented
--- Additional Comments From drow at sources dot redhat dot com 2008-05-21 12:23 --- Subject: Re: __start_SECNAME undocumented On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:10:51PM -, nickc at redhat dot com wrote: > Tell you what - I'll check in the change to the manual as-is and add an > addendum to the NEWS entry describing how the feature is now > implemented, in case other people read that far back in the NEWS file. Sounds good. Thank you! -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6519 --- 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/6430] --sort-common Not Implemented Per Documentation
--- Additional Comments From evandro at yahoo dot com 2008-05-21 14:01 --- I think that the choice should be available. I'll craft it up in a moment. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430 --- 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/6511] segmentation fault building final object
--- Additional Comments From frediano dot ziglio at vodafone dot com
2008-05-21 14:23 ---
I tried the patch. It just move the problem but it core after some while...
I tried to produce a test case but after three hours I got two c files that make
ld core only if compiled with some parameters (like -g or not). It always happen
if I use visibility modifier in gcc 4.1.1. Perhaps is the compiler I used?
Well... after the reduction
I tried the patch. It just move the problem but it core after some while...
I tried to produce a test case but after three hours I got two c files that make
ld core only if compiled with some parameters (like -g or not). It always happen
if I use visibility modifier in gcc 4.1.1. Perhaps is the compiler I used?
$ hppa64-hp-hpux11.00-gcc -O2 -c ctutil.c && hppa64-hp-hpux11.00-gcc -fPIC -O2
-c ct.c && hppa64-hp-hpux11.00-ld -shared ct.o ctutil.o
hppa64-hp-hpux11.00-ld: ctutil.o: invalid string offset 1734672384 >= 27 for
section `.strtab'
$ cat ct.c
struct context1
{
int (*msg_handler) (void);
};
struct context2
{
struct context1 *tds_ctx;
};
#pragma GCC visibility push(hidden)
int _ct_handle_server_message(void);
#pragma GCC visibility pop
int
foo1(struct context2 * ctx)
{
ctx->tds_ctx->msg_handler = _ct_handle_server_message;
return 345;
}
$ ctutil.c
#pragma GCC visibility push(hidden)
int _ct_handle_server_message(void);
#pragma GCC visibility pop
int
_ct_handle_server_message(void)
{
return 0;
}
$
however if I remove ct.o from ld command it handle ctutil.o... I really don't
understand. Can I send binary object files ?? They are quite small (about 1 kb)
Frediano
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6511
--- 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
Re: [Bug ld/6511] segmentation fault building final object
Hi Frediano, Can I send binary object files ?? They are quite small (about 1 kb) Sure - put them in a tarball and I'll see what I can do. Cheers Nick ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6511] segmentation fault building final object
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2008-05-21 15:17 --- Subject: Re: segmentation fault building final object Hi Frediano, > Can I send binary object files ?? They are quite small (about 1 kb) Sure - put them in a tarball and I'll see what I can do. Cheers Nick -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6511 --- 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/6511] segmentation fault building final object
--- Additional Comments From frediano dot ziglio at vodafone dot com 2008-05-21 15:26 --- Created an attachment (id=2749) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2749&action=view) object files from my gcc version result from hppa64-hp-hpux11.00-gcc -O2 -c ctutil.c && hppa64-hp-hpux11.00-gcc -O2 -c ct.c $ hppa64-hp-hpux11.00-gcc --version hppa64-hp-hpux11.00-gcc (GCC) 4.1.1 Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6511 --- 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/6430] --sort-common Not Implemented Per Documentation
--- Additional Comments From evandro at yahoo dot com 2008-05-21 21:35 --- Created an attachment (id=2750) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2750&action=view) Patch providing the user with a choice. Please, review this patch that allows the user to choose between ascending or descending order, assuming descending order as currently if nothing is specified. -- What|Removed |Added Attachment #2707 is|0 |1 obsolete|| Attachment #2720 is|0 |1 obsolete|| http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430 --- 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
