[Bug binutils/19722] [libopcodes] [Aarch64] Undefined SIMD instruction not marked undefined
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19722 --- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Nathan, > I'm not assembling this instruction, I am disassembling it from raw bytes. Ah - OK - that makes sense. I am not sure if it is really worth fixing this problem though. It would take a lot of effort to add code to check for all the possible undefined instructions in the AArch64 disassembler. I know that there already is code to display instructions whose binaries are completely unrecognised, but that is different. At the moment the disassembler does not have any code to detect illegal/undefined forms of recognised instructions, and adding that code would take a lot of time, and probably introduce new bugs. 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 ld/17334] building gcc-4.5.4 hits BFD (GNU Binutils) 2.25 assertion fail elf32-bfin.c:4457
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17334 --- Comment #11 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=ed3056ebdb9795446157af03d3e08fbb93c1b01d commit ed3056ebdb9795446157af03d3e08fbb93c1b01d Author: Nick Clifton Date: Tue Mar 29 10:24:16 2016 +0100 Relax assertion in BFIN linker to allow for discard GOT relocs. PR 17334 * elf32-bfin.c (elf32_bfinfdpic_finish_dynamic_sections): Relax assertion on the size of the got section to allow it to be bigger than the number of relocs. -- 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/18452] ld allows overlapping sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18452 --- Comment #11 from Andrei Lupas --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #7) > Since there seems to be enough interest in this bug for people to actually > write patches, here is what I think would work and be accepted: > > In lang_size_sections_1, near the comment "A backwards move of dot", set a > static global var whenever seeing "dot < last->vma". This should flag all > cases where overlays are used without false triggers. > > Modify lang_check_section_addresses to check for vma overlap when no > overlays are detected. > - Use IGNORE_SECTION again to choose interesting sections (the attached > patch was wrong in treatment of .tbss) > - In the existing lma checking loop, ignore !SEC_LOAD sections. Some > rewriting might be necessary to elegantly handle the case of the first > section being !SEC_LOAD. > - Write another loop to check vmas if overlays not present This would be great (would definitely solve my problem; ld scripts I used didn't use OVERLAY command). -- 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/19877] crash when using objdump -t -C
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19877 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||nickc at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Philippe, This bug is actually in the libiberty library, which (amongst other things), is responsible for the demangling of C++ names. Unfortunately this library is a separate project from the binutils, so you will need to refile the bug report with them. (Send the report to and , CC'ed to the GCC bugs mailing list). 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/19872] nm and probably addr2line can't handle binaries produced with gold --incremental
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19872 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Guys, Could somebody upload a (small) test case please ? 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 gas/19880] New: gas/config/tc-arm.c:12519 error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19880 Bug ID: 19880 Summary: gas/config/tc-arm.c:12519 error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gas Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: kieranbingham at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- This error fires on origin/master only if the optimiser is set to -O0 gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I/home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas -I. -I/home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas -I../bfd -I/home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas/config -I/home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas/../include -I/home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas/.. -I/home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas/../bfd -DLOCALEDIR="\"/usr/share/locale\"" -W -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wshadow -Wstack-usage=262144 -Werror -I/home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas/../zlib -g3 -O0 -fsanitize=undefined -MT tc-arm.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/tc-arm.Tpo -c -o tc-arm.o `test -f 'config/tc-arm.c' || echo '/home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas/'`config/tc-arm.c /home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas/config/tc-arm.c: In function ‘do_t_push_pop’: /home/linuxembedded/linaro/lkd/openst-lkd/sources/binutils-gdb/gas/config/tc-arm.c:12519:23: error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions [-Werror=sign-compare] && (mask & ~0xff) == (1 << (inst.instruction == T_MNEM_push ^ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors Makefile:972: recipe for target 'tc-arm.o' failed make[5]: *** [tc-arm.o] Error 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 binutils/19872] nm and probably addr2line can't handle binaries produced with gold --incremental
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19872
--- Comment #2 from Britton Kerin ---
$ cat test.c
int
main (void)
{
return 0;
}
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -Werror -g -c test.c -o test.o
$ rm -f test && gcc -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--incremental test.o -o test
test: stat: No such file or directory
linking with --incremental-full
$ nm --line-numbers test >/dev/null
nm: Dwarf Error: Bad abbrev number: 0.
nm: Dwarf Error: found dwarf version '0', this reader only handles version 2, 3
and 4 information.
$
--
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/18452] ld allows overlapping sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18452
--- Comment #12 from Cristian Gavril Olar ---
Created attachment 9141
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9141&action=edit
Quick thing to check
I'd like to quickly check something with you all. See this attached modified
version of the first testcase. I just did a quick check, didn't yet make all of
the changes suggested but just plaed some printfs like:
if (dot < last->vma
&& os->bfd_section->size != 0
&& dot + os->bfd_section->size <= last->vma)
...
printf("Overlays detected!\n");
...
}
else
{
printf("Overlays not detected!\n");
I notice with this, as was my expectation, there are no overlays detected, so
then, with no overlays detected, the !SEC_LOAD would pass. But the VMA address
check would not. Still this is an intended overlay for my usecase in there. It
is just that the intended overlap is of nolaod sections not load sections.
Because in either way I do not want nor need memory eaten up by neither of the
.bss or .otherbss sections.
This usecase is extremely valid and required for me. I'd like to understand the
position on this. I would have preferred to stay in tune with vanilla binutils
but if it must be, I guess that's the beauty of GPL :) -> we'll just have to
fork binutils into something that accepts this use case.
If this usecase is accepted as needed (as it definitely is for my usecase) then
I would be open to discuss further and help if possible with implementing
support for it. Otherwise I wont' bother anymore and go with forking.
--
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/18452] ld allows overlapping sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18452 --- Comment #13 from Cristian Gavril Olar --- Thank you for your patience and contributions to this thread so far. It was in any case very instructive. -- 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
