[Bug ld/18452] ld allows overlapping sections

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18452

--- Comment #14 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org  ---
The master branch has been updated by Alan Modra :

https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=a87dd97a2098b7e18ff2574a4e81ae521ef7e6f2

commit a87dd97a2098b7e18ff2574a4e81ae521ef7e6f2
Author: Alan Modra 
Date:   Wed Mar 30 17:35:14 2016 +1030

PR18452, ld allows overlapping sections

PR 18452
* ldlang.c (maybe_overlays): New static var.
(lang_size_sections_1): Set it here.
(struct check_sec): New.
(sort_sections_by_lma): Adjust for array of structs.
(sort_sections_by_vma): New function.
(lang_check_section_addresses): Check both LMA and VMA for overlap.
* testsuite/ld-scripts/rgn-over7.d: Adjust.

-- 
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

[amodra at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18452

Alan Modra  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org   |amodra at gmail dot com

--- Comment #15 from Alan Modra  ---
I think the patch I've just committed should catch all the common cases of
accidental overlap.  Please try it out.

-- 
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

[nickc at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19872

--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton  ---
Created attachment 9142
  --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9142&action=edit
Proposed patch

Hi Britton,

  Please could you try out this patch and let me know how you get on.

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 gold/19842] LTO build fails to write call address for weak symbol reference

[matt at godbolt dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842

--- Comment #31 from Matt Godbolt  ---
Hi all,

Just following up on this as it seems to have stalled: @honza, do you concur
this may be a bug in GCC? If so shall I file something, or are you happy to
capture it appropriately?

Thanks, Matt

-- 
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] gas/config/tc-arm.c:12519 error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions

[nickc at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19880

Nick Clifton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nickc at redhat dot com

--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton  ---
Created attachment 9143
  --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9143&action=edit
Possible fix

Hi Kieran,

  Please could you check to see if this patch fixes the problem.

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] gas/config/tc-arm.c:12519 error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions

[kieranbingham at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19880

Kieran Bingham  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kieranbingham at gmail dot com

--- Comment #2 from Kieran Bingham  ---
Comment on attachment 9143
  --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9143
Possible fix

Yes, that fixes it. I fixed it locally with an (unsigned) cast but your fix is
shorter, simpler and better :)

-- 
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] gas/config/tc-arm.c:12519 error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19880

--- Comment #3 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=c6025a80cc284ae2781278de6f44c672d5077797

commit c6025a80cc284ae2781278de6f44c672d5077797
Author: Nick Clifton 
Date:   Wed Mar 30 16:18:04 2016 +0100

Fix compile time warning about comparison between signed and unsigned
values.

PR target/19880
* config/tc-arm.c (do_t_push_pop): Cast bitmask to unsigned before
shifting.

-- 
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] gas/config/tc-arm.c:12519 error: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions

[nickc at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19880

Nick Clifton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton  ---
Patch applied.

-- 
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 gold/19842] LTO build fails to write call address for weak symbol reference

[hubicka at ucw dot cz]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842

--- Comment #32 from hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
> Hi all,
> 
> Just following up on this as it seems to have stalled: @honza, do you concur
> this may be a bug in GCC? If so shall I file something, or are you happy to
> capture it appropriately?

If the resolution is PREVAILING_DEF then indeed GCC should not take it away.
As I understand, there is only proprietary testcase.  Would be possible
to compile it with --save-temps -fdump-ipa-all and lookup the symbol in
question in .wpa.*cgraph and .wpa.*whole-program dumps or attach the dumps
somewhere for me to explore?

Honza

-- 
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 gold/19842] LTO build fails to write call address for weak symbol reference

[matt at godbolt dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842

--- Comment #33 from Matt Godbolt  ---
Yes, I can do that. I'll get back to you with the relevant information as
soon as I can.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:23 AM hubicka at ucw dot cz <
sourceware-bugzi...@sourceware.org> wrote:

> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842
>
> --- Comment #32 from hubicka at ucw dot cz ---
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just following up on this as it seems to have stalled: @honza, do you
> concur
> > this may be a bug in GCC? If so shall I file something, or are you happy
> to
> > capture it appropriately?
>
> If the resolution is PREVAILING_DEF then indeed GCC should not take it
> away.
> As I understand, there is only proprietary testcase.  Would be possible
> to compile it with --save-temps -fdump-ipa-all and lookup the symbol in
> question in .wpa.*cgraph and .wpa.*whole-program dumps or attach the dumps
> somewhere for me to explore?
>
> Honza
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.

-- 
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/19886] New: PR17287 --as-needed regression

[glebfm at altlinux dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19886

Bug ID: 19886
   Summary: PR17287 --as-needed regression
   Product: binutils
   Version: 2.27 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P2
 Component: ld
  Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
  Reporter: glebfm at altlinux dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

The fix for PR17287 (commit 1240be6b7d0a5604c4e3efe12c9e1d08ebc246be)
introduced a regression:

$ printf "#include \n void f(void* p) { free(p); }" | gcc -xc - -c
-fPIC -o f.o
$ ld -shared f.o /lib64/libc.so.6 -o libf.so
$ gcc -c -fPIC -xc /dev/null -o b.o
$ ld -shared -o libb.so b.o -L. -lf --as-needed /lib64/libc.so.6
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
$ readelf -dW libb.so | grep 'NEEDED.*ld-linux'
 0x0001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]

-- 
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 gold/19842] LTO build fails to write call address for weak symbol reference

[ccoutant at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842

--- Comment #34 from Cary Coutant  ---
I've been trying to come up with a small repro for this, but so far have not
been successful. I've tried deepening the inline stack, adding register
pressure, and even fiddled with inlining parameters, but I cannot get a test
case where it does not inline the destructor for std::function. From what I can
tell, it looks like it's being inlined in early inlining.

-- 
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

[blastrock0 at free dot fr]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19877

--- Comment #3 from Philippe  ---
Hi Nick,

Thank you for your response. I sent the report to these people as you said.

Cheers,
Philippe

-- 
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 gold/19842] LTO build fails to write call address for weak symbol reference

[matt at godbolt dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842

--- Comment #35 from Matt Godbolt  ---
Hi Honza,

I checkout the branch of my code where the problem exists and confirmed I could
reproduce. Then I re-linked with =-save-temps -fdump-ipa-all and sadly I get an
ICE:

GNU GIMPLE (DRW-internal-build) version 5.2.0 (x86_64-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 5.2.0, GMP version 4.3.2, MPFR version 2.4.2,
MPC version 0.8.1
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072
GNU GIMPLE (DRW-internal-build) version 5.2.0 (x86_64-linux-gnu)
compiled by GNU C version 5.2.0, GMP version 4.3.2, MPFR version 2.4.2,
MPC version 0.8.1
GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072
lto1: internal compiler error: in lhd_decl_printable_name, at langhooks.c:243
0x8345de lhd_decl_printable_name(tree_node*, int)
../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/langhooks.c:243
0x5e symtab_node::name() const
../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/symtab.c:479
0x5e symtab_node::dump_base(_IO_FILE*)
../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/symtab.c:745
0xb6f480 varpool_node::dump(_IO_FILE*)
../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/varpool.c:239
0x666e2a symtab_node::dump_table(_IO_FILE*)
../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/symtab.c:872
0x60eee7 read_cgraph_and_symbols
../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/lto/lto.c:3132
0x60eee7 lto_main()
../../gcc-5.2.0/gcc/lto/lto.c:3475
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See  for instructions.
lto-wrapper: fatal error: /home/mgodbolt/.fighome/runtime/gcc/5.2.0-2/bin/g++
returned 1 exit status
compilation terminated.

I can retry with a more contemporary GCC build if you feel that would help. I
can also share the full error log (and anything else), if you don't mind me
emailing it to you directly (via a Google drive link).

Thanks, Matt

-- 
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 gold/19842] LTO build fails to write call address for weak symbol reference

[matt at godbolt dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19842

--- Comment #36 from Matt Godbolt  ---
Ok; with a GCC 6 snapshot build (20160221) there's no crash when I link with
-fdump-ipa-all

I will tar up the results and send you an email with the link.

-- 
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 gold/19887] New: --export-dynamic-symbol ignored for plugin symbols

[eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19887

Bug ID: 19887
   Summary: --export-dynamic-symbol ignored for plugin symbols
   Product: binutils
   Version: 2.27 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P2
 Component: gold
  Assignee: ccoutant at gmail dot com
  Reporter: eugeni.stepanov at gmail dot com
CC: ian at airs dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

$ cat 1.c
void f() {}
int main() {}

$ clang -flto -O0 1.c -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--export-dynamic-symbol=f
-Wl,-plugin-opt,generate-api-file

$ cat apifile.txt
f PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY
main PREVAILING_DEF

Gold says that "f" is PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY, i.e. has no external references. I
believe it should be PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY_EXP due to
--export-dynamic-symbol=f.

The following patch implements the desired behaviour, though I'm not 100% sure
this is the best place for the fix.

--- a/gold/plugin.cc
+++ b/gold/plugin.cc
@@ -930,7 +930,10 @@ is_visible_from_outside(Symbol* lsym)
 {
   if (lsym->in_dyn())
 return true;
-  if (parameters->options().export_dynamic() ||
parameters->options().shared())
+  if (parameters->options().export_dynamic() ||
+  parameters->options().shared() ||
+  parameters->options().in_dynamic_list(lsym->name()) ||
+  parameters->options().is_export_dynamic_symbol(lsym->name()))
 return lsym->is_externally_visible();
   return false;
 }

-- 
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

[markus at trippelsdorf dot de]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19877

Markus Trippelsdorf  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot de

--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf  ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #2)
> 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).

Hi Nick,

this is bad advice, because nobody should post to the GCC bugs mailing list
directly. Only automated bugzilla mail is posted there.

-- 
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/19886] PR17287 --as-needed regression

[ldv at altlinux dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19886

Dmitry V. Levin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ldv at altlinux dot 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 gold/19891] New: arm: The order of IFUNC (R_ARM_IRELATIVE and R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT) relocations is incorrect

[dimitry at google dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19891

Bug ID: 19891
   Summary: arm: The order of IFUNC (R_ARM_IRELATIVE and
R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT) relocations is incorrect
   Product: binutils
   Version: 2.25
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P2
 Component: gold
  Assignee: ccoutant at gmail dot com
  Reporter: dimitry at google dot com
CC: ian at airs dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

Here readelf -r -W output for arm library:

Relocation section '.rel.dyn' at offset 0x5f8 contains 29 entries:
 Offset InfoTypeSym. Value  Symbol's Name
3e30  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e34  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e40  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e44  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e48  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e4c  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e50  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e54  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e58  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e5c  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e60  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e64  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e68  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e6c  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e70  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e74  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e78  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3e7c  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3fb0  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3fb4  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3fb8  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
4000  0017 R_ARM_RELATIVE
3fa8  0815 R_ARM_GLOB_DAT    __stack_chk_guard
3fac  0b15 R_ARM_GLOB_DAT    stderr
3f98  0f15 R_ARM_GLOB_DAT 08f5   return_true
3f9c  1015 R_ARM_GLOB_DAT 0901   return_false
3fa4  1515 R_ARM_GLOB_DAT 090d   f1
3fa0  1815 R_ARM_GLOB_DAT 0919   f2
3ffc  00a0 R_ARM_IRELATIVE   

Relocation section '.rel.plt' at offset 0x6e0 contains 13 entries:
 Offset InfoTypeSym. Value  Symbol's Name
3fc8  0116 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   __cxa_finalize
3fcc  0316 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   __cxa_atexit
3fd0  0416 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   __register_atfork
3fd4  0616 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   getenv
3fd8  1216 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOTfoo()  foo
3fdc  0716 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   __stack_chk_fail
3fe0  0916 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   abort
3fe4  0a16 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   fprintf
3fe8  0e16 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   __aeabi_memcpy
3fec  0d16 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   __aeabi_memclr8
3ff0  0216 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   dladdr
3ff4  0516 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   __snprintf_chk
3ff8  0c16 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOT   __gnu_Unwind_Find_exidx

2 problems:
1. R_ARM_IRELATIVE -> to make sure that the function is ready to be called by
this relocation it needs to be in .rel.plt segment and go after everything
else.
2. 3fd8  1216 R_ARM_JUMP_SLOTfoo()  foo
same problem here - should be last

Here is output for the same library on arm64 (for the reference):
Relocation section '.rela.dyn' at offset 0x600 contains 6 entries:
Offset Info Type   Symbol's Value 
Symbol's Name + Addend
1d50  0403 R_AARCH64_RELATIVE   
7b0
1d58  0403 R_AARCH64_RELATIVE   
7a0
1f98  00050401 R_AARCH64_GLOB_DAT 0860
return_true + 0
1fa0  00060401 R_AARCH64_GLOB_DAT 086c
return_false + 0
1fb0  000b0401 R_AARCH64_GLOB_DAT 0878 f1 +
0
1fa8  000e0401 R_AARCH64_GLOB_DAT 0884 f2 +
0

Relocation section '.rela.plt' at offset 0x690 contains 6 entries:
Offset Info Type   Symbol's Value 
Symbol's Name + Addend
1fd0  00010402 R_AARCH64_JUMP_SLOT
__cxa_finalize + 0
1fd8  00040402 R_AARCH64_JUMP_SLOT
__cxa_atexit + 0
1fe0  00020402 R_AARCH64_JUMP_SLOT
__register_atfork + 0
1fe8  00030402 R_AARCH64_JUMP_SLOT
getenv + 0
1ff0  00080402 R_AARCH64_JUMP_SLOTfoo()foo
+ 0
1ff8  0408 R_AARCH64_IRELATIVE  
890

-- 
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 gold/16979] gold fails to override built-in symbols

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16979

--- Comment #1 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org  ---
The master branch has been updated by Cary Coutant :

https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=b60ecbc6ddeaf7af8f2515841b58035f0d4d2db7

commit b60ecbc6ddeaf7af8f2515841b58035f0d4d2db7
Author: Cary Coutant 
Date:   Wed Mar 30 19:14:16 2016 -0700

Don't override definition a shared object by one in a later shared object.

In PR 16979, a reference to malloc is being resolved to an unversioned
reference in libmalloc.so. When linked with --as-needed, however, the
dynamic table does not list libmalloc.so as a DT_NEEDED library.

If we have a reference to an unversioned symbol in a shared object,
and we later see a versioned definition in another shared object, we
were overriding the first definition with the second in the process of
defining the default version. As a result, we no longer think that the
first shared object was actually needed to resolve any symbols, and we
don't list it as a DT_NEEDED library.

This patch fixes the problem by treating the two definitions as separate
symbols, so the second definition does not override the first.

2016-03-30  Cary Coutant  

gold/
PR gold/16979
* symtab.cc (Symbol_table::define_default_version): Check for case
where symbols are both in different shared objects.

-- 
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 gold/16979] gold fails to override built-in symbols

[ccoutant at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16979

Cary Coutant  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #2 from Cary Coutant  ---
Fixed.

-- 
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