[Bug gas/20196] Opcode regressions for e6500
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20196 Sebastian Huber changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber --- Thanks a lot for this really quick fix. In addition, thanks for adding the consistency checks to the sync L, E in https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=7b9341139a693eac8d316275004b2d752b1f0cb8 Thus, error 3 and 4 are actually errors on our side thanks to the vague e6500 reference manual. The Power ISA 2.07 document clarified 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/19554] PowerPC/e6500: esync E simplified mnemonic not supported
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19554 Sebastian Huber changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #1 from Sebastian Huber --- The esync E simplified mnemonic is not present in the Power ISA 2.07, thus it seems to be e6500 specific. Its probably not worth to add 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 binutils/20193] Invalid executable after adding debuglink to an executable produced after merging PE resource sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20193 --- Comment #8 from Jon TURNEY --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #6) > Question: in the 1.exe post-patch file the MinorLinkerVersion field in the > COFF > header shows 26, but in all the other .exe files, both pre- and post- patch, > the version number is reported as 25. Any idea why this might be ? This is the binutils version number. The current cygwin package is binutils 2.25.2 I only updated ld with a build from git master with the patch applied, 2.exe and 3.exe record the version number of objcopy used to make them? -- 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/20193] Invalid executable after adding debuglink to an executable produced after merging PE resource sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20193 --- Comment #9 from Jon TURNEY --- Created attachment 9319 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9319&action=edit Output from test case with 2nd patch applied (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #7) > Does this variation on your patch make a difference ? > > The change is to set the virtual size to the size *before* the .rsrc > section > is padded out to a file alignment boundary. This doesn't seem to help. Testing on x86_64, 1 is still invalid, 2 and 3 are valid. I'm not sure this is working as intended though, as the .rsrc section size is also the reported as the unpadded size. -- 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
