[Bug ld/19807] [2.26 regression] R_386_GOT32X optimization breaks linux kernel
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19807 --- Comment #20 from Richard Guenther --- Hum, so we leave 2.26 broken? -- 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/19827] Wrong relocation with defined symbol in PIE
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19827 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org -- 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/19531] ld fails to build proper executables in several cases on x64_64-w64-mingw32
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531 --- Comment #5 from Rainer Emrich --- Created attachment 9099 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9099&action=edit section headers produced by ld-2.16 -- 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/19531] ld fails to build proper executables in several cases on x64_64-w64-mingw32
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531 --- Comment #4 from Rainer Emrich --- Created attachment 9098 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9098&action=edit sectionheaders produced by binutils-2.15 Im adding the objdump output for section headers, private headers and symbol tables produced by binutils-2.15.1 and binutils-2.16. I can't really interpret this data, but it's obvious that the .rdata section produced by ld-2.15.1 is much larger than the version produced by ld-2.16. The symbol tables are really different. -- 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/19531] ld fails to build proper executables in several cases on x64_64-w64-mingw32
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531 Rainer Emrich changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #9098|sectionheaders produced by |section headers produced by description|ld-2.15.1 |ld-2.15.1 -- 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/19531] ld fails to build proper executables in several cases on x64_64-w64-mingw32
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531 Rainer Emrich changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #9098|sectionheaders produced by |sectionheaders produced by description|binutils-2.15 |ld-2.15.1 -- 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/19531] ld fails to build proper executables in several cases on x64_64-w64-mingw32
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531 --- Comment #6 from Rainer Emrich --- Created attachment 9100 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9100&action=edit private headers produced by ld-2.15.1 -- 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/19531] ld fails to build proper executables in several cases on x64_64-w64-mingw32
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531 --- Comment #7 from Rainer Emrich --- Created attachment 9101 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9101&action=edit private headers produced by ld-2.16 -- 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/19531] ld fails to build proper executables in several cases on x64_64-w64-mingw32
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531 --- Comment #8 from Rainer Emrich --- Created attachment 9102 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9102&action=edit symbol tables produced by ld-2.15.1 -- 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/19531] ld fails to build proper executables in several cases on x64_64-w64-mingw32
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19531 --- Comment #9 from Rainer Emrich --- Created attachment 9103 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9103&action=edit symbol tables produced by ld-2.16 -- 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/19807] [2.26 regression] R_386_GOT32X optimization breaks linux kernel
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19807 Fabian Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #21 from Fabian Vogt --- (In reply to Richard Guenther from comment #20) > Hum, so we leave 2.26 broken? The 2.26 release is not broken, "only" the binutils-2_26-branch. Reopening to request clarification whether and how that can be solved. -- 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/19807] [2.26 regression] R_386_GOT32X optimization breaks linux kernel
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19807 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 16 Mar 2016, fvogt at suse dot com wrote: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19807 > > Fabian Vogt changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED > Resolution|FIXED |--- > > --- Comment #21 from Fabian Vogt --- > (In reply to Richard Guenther from comment #20) > > Hum, so we leave 2.26 broken? > > The 2.26 release is not broken, "only" the binutils-2_26-branch. True. > Reopening to request clarification whether and how that can be solved. A possibility is to revert backporting of the new relocation support. -- 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
