[Bug binutils/19587] Some of the less-well used targets won't compile with gcc-6 due to static vars in opcode headers
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19587 --- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Maciej, > AFAICT mips_isa_table is always used, so I'd rather keep it without > useless annotation so that if it ever becomes unused indeed an error > is spat in the face right away. OK - I will not touch it. :-) Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/19437] ld segmentation fault
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19437 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton --- This problem is fixed in 2.26 and later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/19405] nios2 binutils assertion fail at elf32-nios2.c:1038
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19405 --- Comment #8 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=83da6e748c8f105f07e17f53aa6b99ed7867ff5f commit 83da6e748c8f105f07e17f53aa6b99ed7867ff5f Author: Nick Clifton Date: Wed Feb 10 11:25:59 2016 + Correct assertion in NIOS2 linker to allow signed 16-buit immediate values. PR 19405 * elf32-nios2.c (nios2_elf32_install_imm16): Allow for signed immediate values. * elf-eh-frame.c (_bfd_elf_discard_section_eh_frame): Limit the number of messages about FDE encoding preventing .eh_frame_hdr generation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/19405] nios2 binutils assertion fail at elf32-nios2.c:1038
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19405 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Romain. Hi Thomas. OK - I have applied the patch and I am closing this PR. This: > /tmp/ccXCSISE.s:13821: Error: r31 cannot be used with jmp; use ret instead > /tmp/ccXCSISE.s:14446: Error: r31 cannot be used with jmp; use ret instead is a seperate bug, and very likely a gcc bug rather than a binutils one. (Assuming that gas is correct in saying that r31 cannot be used with jmp). Please could you file a new, gcc, bug report, preferably with the source file and gcc command line that triggers the problem, so that it can be investigated. Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/19248] assertion fail cofflink.c:264
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19248 --- Comment #3 from b.rav at outlook dot com --- Hello The compilation was successful with dynamic libraries .dll (Windows - Cygwin) Regards Rafal -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
segfault on bfd_elf_get_dynamic_symtab_upper_bound
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all, I've been trying to reinvent the wheel by learning how to use libbfd to write a small debugger. I know that to get symbols that I'll need to use libbfd and that objdump -D can produce output to what I want. However, when copying objdump's slurp_dynamic_symtab(bfd *abfd) I find that I get a segfault on bfd_get_dynamic_symtab_upper_bound(). slurp_symtab works when copied over, so I know I have to be doing something close to right. I found a thread that looks similar, but the topic is dropped in further messages: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/2003-12/msg00051.html I thought this might have been an openSuSE problem and reported it here: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=965667 However, I've found the same problem on Debian Jessie. If you have any ideas or if I can provide more info, please let me know! Helpful info: uname -a: Linux node 4.0.5-THS_on #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Jun 18 16:37:06 CDT 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux gcc --version: gcc-4_8-branch revision 212064 objdump --version: 2.24.0.20140403-6.1 Regards, Eric -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWu1pDAAoJECjJUTdBhEe00QAQAIHRaAJ5/oMTF957RuOXvs54 xpIPv1VaMe1eRNq3TN/McAa6RdkIM/RPfvTJ/YExj4U5j33AlvboUPpCjK7p324Q t1D0ok2IneA7vyCBCtKuJImBMR4eyVAZCExHn0EB7xWZKmsHcknsQQdwjpL3R9Vg h2xAQNHaUsHpowTV09z+zO0XAjACYMF5GeceAz5ZSljMEG351s3cX0sf1u8WBd4Z /4znOILJ/fHOydPI98rMskFbMqUy5+nKId2ONUVuBtI1t4ADujBYS/3FzZ5fx+cV RH7h1X8gbmn4ef2PnfVigK6T+z6qTCSTqAuMiuOLq2PVd/rLwN/o22Y8GzSdQuxR gSYd4LRrkMkl0KFb4Bxq7zuCaCcK3C9ylEKmRFg9bZrnpxZUjyq1sdu6ZMG9dJVG +FzqCqwj8xvqnMF8XpH3Fv7NePs3N3CvvGU9MRjnYvGUVJQhxjzZ74GVvyUIWWPQ 81Lz6RKEryrIe+XGxGtrEXfr7Ve9YMulelZHiTU5PfarCkaWGHscKwXcTC+VVpiV nfHgLXGU+rU0UmwjhhU9WPX41OQws0pWlVtHod0ae2VBeLv2FtalwOUfe1+rafbT D1j3lOvd5k6iZL/zzwPdleyWiKyIZ+xW1BXTVHxCAwHoeNsnZjgOhZHWBnvJw2bv y25JjThv6RMhKKdgDPyn =jXym -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19480] [2.26.51 regression] ld creates wrong output for libstdc++6.dll for mingw32 (32-bit)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19480 Stephen Kitt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve at sk2 dot org --- Comment #1 from Stephen Kitt --- I've encountered a similar problem (see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813144 for details), and reverting 0f088b2a9417b1d4ed597849ffa671eba25f5051 fixes it for me... (Not that it's a good long-term solution of course!) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/15393] .string with hex should be parsed differently
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15393 louis.granboulan.developer at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #2 from louis.granboulan.developer at gmail dot com --- Indeed, C string parsing rules are unintuitive. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/19600] New: Parsing $E@GOT+1 forgets the offset
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600 Bug ID: 19600 Summary: Parsing $E@GOT+1 forgets the offset Product: binutils Version: 2.25 Status: NEW Severity: minor Priority: P2 Component: gas Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: louis.granboulan.developer at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Input is a.s .globl main .text main: movl$E, %eax movl$E+1, %eax movl$E@GOT, %eax movl$E@GOT+1, %eax Assembled with "as -32 -o a.o a.s" Analyzed with "objdump -dr a.o" a.o: file format elf32-i386 Disassembly of section .text: : 0: b8 00 00 00 00 mov$0x0,%eax 1: R_386_32 E 5: b8 01 00 00 00 mov$0x1,%eax 6: R_386_32 E a: b8 00 00 00 00 mov$0x0,%eax b: R_386_GOT32 E f: b8 00 00 00 00 mov$0x0,%eax 10: R_386_GOT32 E The error is the last line, where I would have expected "b8 01 00 00 00" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19601] New: Wrong GOT offset used with GOT relocation
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19601
Bug ID: 19601
Summary: Wrong GOT offset used with GOT relocation
Product: binutils
Version: 2.26
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: i386
[hjl@gnu-6 lea-5]$ cat main.c
extern void foo1 (void);
extern void foo2 (void);
typedef void (* func) (void);
extern func func_p (void);
int
_start ()
{
func f = func_p ();
foo1 ();
foo2 ();
if (f)
f ();
return 0;
}
[hjl@gnu-6 lea-5]$ cat foo1.c
extern void bar (void) __attribute__((weak));
void
foo1 (void)
{
if (bar)
bar ();
}
[hjl@gnu-6 lea-5]$ cat foo2.c
extern void bar (void) __attribute__((weak));
void
foo2 (void)
{
if (bar)
bar ();
}
[hjl@gnu-6 lea-5]$ make
gcc -B./ -m32 -O2 -fPIC -c -o main.o main.c
gcc -B./ -m32 -O2 -fPIC -c -o foo1.o foo1.c
gcc -B./ -m32 -O2 -fPIC -Wa,-mrelax-relocations=no -c -o bar.o bar.c
gcc -B./ -m32 -O2 -fPIC -c -o foo2.o foo2.c
./ld -m elf_i386 -static -o x main.o foo1.o bar.o foo2.o
objdump -dw x
x: file format elf32-i386
Disassembly of section .text:
080480a0 <_start>:
80480a0: 56 push %esi
80480a1: 53 push %ebx
80480a2: e8 28 00 00 00 call 80480cf <__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx>
80480a7: 81 c3 71 11 00 00 add$0x1171,%ebx
80480ad: 83 ec 04sub$0x4,%esp
80480b0: e8 5b 00 00 00 call 8048110
80480b5: 89 c6 mov%eax,%esi
80480b7: e8 24 00 00 00 call 80480e0
80480bc: e8 6f 00 00 00 call 8048130
80480c1: 85 f6 test %esi,%esi
80480c3: 74 02 je 80480c7 <_start+0x27>
80480c5: ff d6 call *%esi
80480c7: 83 c4 04add$0x4,%esp
80480ca: 31 c0 xor%eax,%eax
80480cc: 5b pop%ebx
80480cd: 5e pop%esi
80480ce: c3 ret
080480cf <__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx>:
80480cf: 8b 1c 24mov(%esp),%ebx
80480d2: c3 ret
80480d3: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
80480d5: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
80480d7: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
80480d9: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
80480db: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
80480dd: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
80480df: 90 nop
080480e0 :
80480e0: 53 push %ebx
80480e1: e8 e9 ff ff ff call 80480cf <__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx>
80480e6: 81 c3 32 11 00 00 add$0x1132,%ebx
80480ec: 83 ec 08sub$0x8,%esp
80480ef: 8b 83 fc ff ff ff mov-0x4(%ebx),%eax
80480f5: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
80480f7: 74 05 je 80480fe
80480f9: e8 02 7f fb f7 call 0 <_start-0x80480a0>
80480fe: 83 c4 08add$0x8,%esp
8048101: 5b pop%ebx
8048102: c3 ret
8048103: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
8048105: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
8048107: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
8048109: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
804810b: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
804810d: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
804810f: 90 nop
08048110 :
8048110: e8 0c 00 00 00 call 8048121 <__x86.get_pc_thunk.ax>
8048115: 05 03 11 00 00 add$0x1103,%eax
804811a: 8b 80 fc ff ff ff mov-0x4(%eax),%eax
8048120: c3 ret
08048121 <__x86.get_pc_thunk.ax>:
8048121: 8b 04 24mov(%esp),%eax
8048124: c3 ret
8048125: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
8048127: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
8048129: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
804812b: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
804812d: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
804812f: 90 nop
08048130 :
8048130: 53 push %ebx
8048131: e8 99 ff ff ff call 80480cf <__x86.get_pc_thunk.bx>
8048136: 81 c3 e2 10 00 00 add$0x10e2,%ebx
804813c: 83 ec 08sub$0x8,%esp
804813f: 8b 83 fd ff ff ff mov-0x3(%ebx),%eax
^ This is wrong.
8048145: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
[Bug ld/19538] ld >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 --- Comment #34 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 8970 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8970&action=edit A patch Please try this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19538] ld >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 --- Comment #35 from hpa at zytor dot com --- With that patch, syslinux builds but is non-functional; the header looks correct but there is a problem somewhere else. I have uploaded the entire build to: http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/syslinux/syslinux-ld.tar.xz The directory "git" was build with binutils.git git ID 8e50258985f01270b142d0537d7b80e789e4d7d7 plus your patch. The directory "git.ref" was build with binutils-2.25-15.fc23.x86_64 from Fedora, and works. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/15393] .string with hex should be parsed differently
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15393 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19538] ld >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 --- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to h...@zytor.com from comment #35) > With that patch, syslinux builds but is non-functional; the header looks > correct but there is a problem somewhere else. The header is correct without my linker patch. > I have uploaded the entire build to: > > http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/syslinux/syslinux-ld.tar.xz > > The directory "git" was build with binutils.git git ID > 8e50258985f01270b142d0537d7b80e789e4d7d7 plus your patch. > > The directory "git.ref" was build with binutils-2.25-15.fc23.x86_64 from > Fedora, and works. I need the linker command line for creating ldlinux.elf. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19538] ld >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 --- Comment #37 from hpa at zytor dot com --- On February 10, 2016 3:33:00 PM PST, "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" wrote: >https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 > >--- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu --- >(In reply to h...@zytor.com from comment #35) >> With that patch, syslinux builds but is non-functional; the header >looks >> correct but there is a problem somewhere else. > >The header is correct without my linker patch. > >> I have uploaded the entire build to: >> >> http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/syslinux/syslinux-ld.tar.xz >> >> The directory "git" was build with binutils.git git ID >> 8e50258985f01270b142d0537d7b80e789e4d7d7 plus your patch. >> >> The directory "git.ref" was build with binutils-2.25-15.fc23.x86_64 >from >> Fedora, and works. > >I need the linker command line for creating ldlinux.elf. You can just do: rm -f bios/core/ldlinux.* make bios |& tee make.log That will give you the linker command line, as well as the postprocessing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19538] ld >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 --- Comment #38 from hpa at zytor dot com --- On February 10, 2016 3:33:00 PM PST, "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" wrote: >https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 > >--- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu --- >(In reply to h...@zytor.com from comment #35) >> With that patch, syslinux builds but is non-functional; the header >looks >> correct but there is a problem somewhere else. > >The header is correct without my linker patch. > >> I have uploaded the entire build to: >> >> http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/syslinux/syslinux-ld.tar.xz >> >> The directory "git" was build with binutils.git git ID >> 8e50258985f01270b142d0537d7b80e789e4d7d7 plus your patch. >> >> The directory "git.ref" was build with binutils-2.25-15.fc23.x86_64 >from >> Fedora, and works. > >I need the linker command line for creating ldlinux.elf. I suspect my changes to the linker script to make the LMA symbols absolute might have fixed the header problem, but the small test case should still show it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19538] ld >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 --- Comment #39 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to h...@zytor.com from comment #38) > > I suspect my changes to the linker script to make the LMA symbols absolute > might have fixed the header problem, but the small test case should still > show it. We may have more than one issues here: 1. Without -pie, no dynamic symbols. I tried the small testcase with binutils 2.25.2: [hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ /export/build/gnu/binutils-misc/build-x86_64-linux/ld/ld-new -m elf_i386 -Ttext 0 -Bdynamic -Bsymbolic -E -o test1.elf test1.o [hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ /export/build/gnu/binutils-misc/build-x86_64-linux/ld/ld-new -v GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.25.2 [hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ nm -Dn test1.elf nm: test1.elf: no symbols There is no dynamic symbol either. [hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ 2. With -pie, still doesn't work. Please tell me what is wrong in the binary generated by 2.26. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19538] ld >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 --- Comment #41 from hpa at zytor dot com --- On February 10, 2016 4:15:39 PM PST, "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" wrote: >https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 > >--- Comment #39 from H.J. Lu --- >(In reply to h...@zytor.com from comment #38) >> >> I suspect my changes to the linker script to make the LMA symbols >absolute >> might have fixed the header problem, but the small test case should >still >> show it. > >We may have more than one issues here: > >1. Without -pie, no dynamic symbols. I tried the small testcase with >binutils 2.25.2: > >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ >/export/build/gnu/binutils-misc/build-x86_64-linux/ld/ld-new -m >elf_i386 -Ttext >0 -Bdynamic -Bsymbolic -E -o test1.elf test1.o >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ >/export/build/gnu/binutils-misc/build-x86_64-linux/ld/ld-new -v >GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.25.2 >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ nm -Dn test1.elf >nm: test1.elf: no symbols > >There is no dynamic symbol either. > >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ > >2. With -pie, still doesn't work. Please tell me what is wrong in >the binary generated by 2.26. In the test case, byte 0x30 of test1.bin should be 0x1f. In the output I believe I sent it is 0x00 from ld 2.26. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19538] ld >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 --- Comment #40 from hpa at zytor dot com --- On February 10, 2016 4:15:39 PM PST, "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" wrote: >https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 > >--- Comment #39 from H.J. Lu --- >(In reply to h...@zytor.com from comment #38) >> >> I suspect my changes to the linker script to make the LMA symbols >absolute >> might have fixed the header problem, but the small test case should >still >> show it. > >We may have more than one issues here: > >1. Without -pie, no dynamic symbols. I tried the small testcase with >binutils 2.25.2: > >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ >/export/build/gnu/binutils-misc/build-x86_64-linux/ld/ld-new -m >elf_i386 -Ttext >0 -Bdynamic -Bsymbolic -E -o test1.elf test1.o >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ >/export/build/gnu/binutils-misc/build-x86_64-linux/ld/ld-new -v >GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.25.2 >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ nm -Dn test1.elf >nm: test1.elf: no symbols > >There is no dynamic symbol either. > >[hjl@gnu-6 without-pie]$ > >2. With -pie, still doesn't work. Please tell me what is wrong in >the binary generated by 2.26. Yes, 1 really should be a separate enhancement PR. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19538] ld >= 2.26 breaks syslinux (bios) build
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19538 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #8970|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 8974 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8974&action=edit A new patch Please try this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/19600] Parsing $E@GOT+1 forgets the offset
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19600 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- What are movl$E@GOT, %eax movl$E@GOT+1, %eax used for? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19601] Wrong GOT offset used with GOT relocation
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19601 --- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=32875eb1f3b928dfe63c5752e8152a9dc09928f3 commit 32875eb1f3b928dfe63c5752e8152a9dc09928f3 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Wed Feb 10 19:33:52 2016 -0800 Mask off the least significant bit in GOT offset The least significant bit in GOT offset is to record whether we have initialized the GOT entry in R_386_GOT32 processing. We need to mask it off for R_386_GOT32X. PR ld/19601 * elf32-i386.c (elf_i386_relocate_section): Mask off the least significant bit in GOT offset for R_386_GOT32X. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19601] Wrong GOT offset used with GOT relocation
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19601 --- Comment #2 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_26-branch branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=1861591a75b8a73af1d3df578fb93bbb73c2f42d commit 1861591a75b8a73af1d3df578fb93bbb73c2f42d Author: H.J. Lu Date: Wed Feb 10 19:33:52 2016 -0800 Mask off the least significant bit in GOT offset The least significant bit in GOT offset is to record whether we have initialized the GOT entry in R_386_GOT32 processing. We need to mask it off for R_386_GOT32X. Backport from master PR ld/19601 * elf32-i386.c (elf_i386_relocate_section): Mask off the least significant bit in GOT offset for R_386_GOT32X. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/19601] Wrong GOT offset used with GOT relocation
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19601 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |2.27 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed on trunk and 2.26 branch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
