[Bug gas/10777] Macro processing altercation
--- Additional Comments From konrad dot schwarz at siemens dot com 2010-01-12 09:52 --- (In reply to comment #1) > You can easily add m4 processing to gas yourself by writing a tiny wrapper > script. I see no need to add yet another feature to gas. Well, like I wrote: > This option is important for > keasy integration with `make' default rules: e.g., in GNU make, > adding `-Wa,-m' > to ASFLAGS would enable using just the default rule catalog to compile such > sources; otherwise, a separate rule needs to be created and a naming scheme > (such as a suffix) be reserved for these files. A further reason is interaction with gcc: If as(1) is invoked via GCC (GNU make's default rules assume this), then the wrapper script is no longer trivial. In particular, .S files should still be operated on by the C pre-processor first, then by as(1) (including m4), and .s files emitted by the compiler should have access to m4 macro expansion; e.g., for GCC inline assembler. The interface between the GCC driver and as(1) is configured via the GCC spec file and the spec file would need to be adapted on a per-site basis. This is decidedly more complex compared to an additional flag in ASFLAGS, owing to the daunting syntax of spec files and the problem of automating such a change to the spec file during an installation process. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10777 --- 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/10773] Malformed archive created when adding several files at once
--- Additional Comments From konrad dot schwarz at siemens dot com 2010-01-12 09:52 --- (In reply to comment #5) > Likely a filesystem bug Actually, the bug went away went I stopped mixing 32 and 64 bit x86 ELF object files in a single archive. I am almost 100% sure this is the actual cause. I consider a file system bug unlikely, as I am running on a stock Open SuSE distribution, I have noticed no other problems in the file system, and the problem was 100% reproducible on my system when mixing different object file types, but did not occur when using object files of a single type. Mixing 32 and 64 bit objects in one archive is certainly a borderline case. However, GNU ld accepts such archives without a problem. Furthermore, a feature of ar(1) in traditional Unixes (always touted in the manuals) was that, if the archive contained only printable files, the entire archive itself was printable; hence the p option to ar. It follows that ar is required to archive arbitrary file types. Thus, I still consider this behavior erroneous and ar buggy. -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|WORKSFORME | http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10773 --- 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/10773] Malformed archive created when adding several files at once
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-12 13:47 --- As I said I could not reproduce this bug with many different versions of FSF binutils. Have you built a version of FSF binutils that exhibits this bug? If so, I'd like to know which version and the arguments you passed to configure. If not, then please report this bug to SUSE as it might be caused by some patch they added to binutils. -- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution||WORKSFORME http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10773 --- 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 gold/11153] missing symbols in libgomp when linked with gold
--- Additional Comments From doko at debian dot org 2010-01-12 14:10 --- don't see this anymore with today's binutils trunk building the gcc trunk. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11153 --- 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/10773] Malformed archive created when adding several files at once
--- Additional Comments From konrad dot schwarz at siemens dot com 2010-01-12 15:37 --- (In reply to comment #7) > As I said I could not reproduce this bug with many different versions of FSF > binutils. Have you built a version of FSF binutils that exhibits this bug? > If > so, I'd like to know which version and the arguments you passed to configure. > If not, then please report this bug to SUSE as it might be caused by some > patch > they added to binutils. Just tested with binutils-2.20. Works for me, too, even with the system supplied ar. Bug does not appear. I can't explain it; the transcript provided in the bug report were taken verbatim from the terminal. Sorry for wasting your time. If the bug reoccurs, I will try to debug it myself. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10773 --- 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/10447] Binutils fail to build on cygwin
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 00:51 --- Fixed mainline and 2.20 -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10447 --- 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/10406] ld terminated with signal 11 [segmentation fault]
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 00:59 --- Have you managed to build one of the more recent snapshots to test whether this bug is fixed? -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at gmail dot com |redhat dot com | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-01-13 00:59:37 date|| http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10406 --- 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/10406] ld terminated with signal 11 [segmentation fault]
--- Additional Comments From olof at baah dot se 2010-01-13 01:29 --- Subject: Re: ld terminated with signal 11 [segmentation fault] No, I'm sorry, but I can't. I no longer have access to the sourcecode which crashed because I've changed employment. 2010/1/13 amodra at gmail dot com : > > --- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 00:59 > --- > Have you managed to build one of the more recent snapshots to test whether > this > bug is fixed? > > -- > What |Removed |Added > > AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at gmail dot com > |redhat dot com | > Status|NEW |ASSIGNED > Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-01-13 00:59:37 > date| | > > > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10406 > > --- You are receiving this mail because: --- > You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. > -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10406 --- 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/10406] ld terminated with signal 11 [segmentation fault]
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 02:46 --- In that case, I'm going to assume that the patch I applied 2009-09-18 fixed the problem. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10406 --- 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/10409] Load address generated correctly, but applied incorrectly.
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 03:09 --- I wonder why .ncdata has size zero in your map? I would have expected .ncdata 0x11e96ed80x8 load address 0x01e96ed8 0x11e96ee0. = ALIGN (0x10) *fill* 0x11e96ed80x8 00 *(.ncdata*) 0x11e96ee0. = ALIGN (0x10) 0x01e96ee0iramcopy = (. - 0x1000) Note the fill and 0x8 for .ncdata section size. This is what I got when I cobbled together a testcase. Hmm, my test didn't have any stubs. Perhaps there is a bug in the arm stub sizing? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10409 --- 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/10409] Load address generated correctly, but applied incorrectly.
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 04:33 --- Created an attachment (id=4510) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4510&action=view) possible fix I reckon this could be the same problem as one I fixed for ppc64 in http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-09/msg00206.html where I removed "stub_changed". The logic involving "stub_changed" is suspect: For example, it's possible that a stub is needed on the first pass over sections, but isn't on the second pass because addition of the first pass stubs changed section placement sufficiently. -- What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at gmail dot com |redhat dot com | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10409 --- 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/10409] Load address generated correctly, but applied incorrectly.
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 04:35 --- Please try out the fix against your sources. I don't have arm compilers readily available to test this out myself -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10409 --- 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/11164] New: [avr] EEPROM location wrong for XMEGA
>From SourceForge bug #2886068 (WinAVR project]: To use EEPROM memory mapping on XMEGA, the address of EEPROM variables must start at offset 0x1000 instead of 0. This should be done by changing all the XMEGA linker scripts so the .eeprom section starts at 0x811000 instead of 0x81. There appear to be 35 linker script files that are affected. AVR Studio debugger will currently not recognize EEPROM data at this alternate starting address. I am submitting a request to Atmel to change that. In the meantime, there is an easy work-around using avr-objcopy to reset the EEPROM address so the debugger will recognize it: avr-objcopy --change-section-vma .eeprom=0x81 .elf -- Summary: [avr] EEPROM location wrong for XMEGA Product: binutils Version: 2.21 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: ld AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: eric dot weddington at atmel dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org GCC target triplet: avr-*-* http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11164 --- 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/11164] [avr] EEPROM location wrong for XMEGA
--- Additional Comments From eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2010-01-13 04:51 --- This enhancement is referring to xmega devices for the avr target, which involves an additional patch which is forthcoming. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11164 --- 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/10316] pei-i386 --all-headers Segfault
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 05:24 --- Appears to be fixed in 2.20 -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10316 --- 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/10259] ld generates bad long branch stubs
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 05:27 --- I wonder if this bug might be fixed by the patch I attached to http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10409 -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10259 --- 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/10356] Segfault in ld with --eh-frame-header for Thumb2
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 06:24 --- Is this problem present in current binutils? There have been fixes to the A8 erratum handling code since your report. Also, you might like to see whether my proposed fix for http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10409 happens to cure this PR too. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10356 --- 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
