[Bug ld/20675] [metag] internal error cross-compiling static programs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20675 --- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton --- Created attachment 9629 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9629&action=edit Proposed patch Hi Wbx, Thanks very much. I can now reproduce the problem, although I am not sure now it should be resolved. At issue is the fact that the libc.a library contains relocations that set up entries in the PLT, but the PLT is only used when creating a dynamic executable, not a static one. You are linking with "-static" specified on the command line, so clearly the intent is to create a static executable. There is a bug in the linker, in that it should have produced an informative error message and then exited with a non-zero return code, rather than calling abort. But I do not think that the linker is doing anything fundamentally wrong. You are asking it to create a static executable, but giving it shared libraries to link. The real bug, IMHO, is the creation of what appears to be a static library - libc.a - but which actually contains shared library code. The uploaded patch will fix the linker, so that an error message like this is displayed: ld:./libc.a(herrno.os)(.text): shared library symbol _h_errno encountered whilst performing a static link ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output If you are happy with this change then I will check it in. I am not sure however what should be done about libc.a. I think that you need to investigate how it was created in the first place. 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/20815] throw errors for invalid load segment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20815 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- (In reply to ma.jiang from comment #0) > Attached "segment-check.patch" adds a check in make_mapping(in elf.c) , it > should be enough to fix the bug. When I try to unzip the attachment I get: Archive: attach.zip End-of-central-directory signature not found. Either this file is not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive. In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on the last disk(s) of this archive. Could you upload the attachment again please ? -- 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/20800] BFD Linker failing (unresolvable R_X86_64_PLTOFF64) with -mcmodel=large and --start-group
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20800
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
[hjl@gnu-6 pr20800]$ cat test.c
#include
int main(void) {
printf("Hello World");
return 0;
}
[hjl@gnu-6 pr20800]$ gcc -fpie -mcmodel=large -fno-builtin test.c
[hjl@gnu-6 pr20800]$ gcc -pie test.o -Wl,-z,now
/usr/local/bin/ld: test.o(.text+0x36): unresolvable R_X86_64_PLTOFF64
relocation against symbol `printf@@GLIBC_2.2.5'
/usr/local/bin/ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
[hjl@gnu-6 pr20800]$
--
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/20814] DLLTool Put Wrong Hint Value In Lib Archieve (IDATA6 Section)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20814 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2016-11-14 CC||nickc at redhat dot com Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Rudy, Thanks for the bug report and patch details. I have applied the changes that you suggested. Please could you confirm that the dlltool now works properly ? 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/20814] DLLTool Put Wrong Hint Value In Lib Archieve (IDATA6 Section)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20814 --- Comment #2 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=35fd2ddeb1d90f1750401cfb6d01fe055656b88d commit 35fd2ddeb1d90f1750401cfb6d01fe055656b88d Author: Rudy Date: Mon Nov 14 16:30:45 2016 + Generate correct hint value for IDATA6. PR binutils/20814 * dlltool.c (struct export): Remove hint field. (make_one_lib_file): Store the ordinal value for IDATA6 not the hint. (gen_lib_file): Delete reference to hint field. (mangle_defs): Delete computation of hint field. -- 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/20811] strip not stripped in the dynamic table
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20811 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- Hi rm beer, > in the .dynamic of SHDR always have the pointer to SYMTAB(.symtab) and > STRTAB(.strtab), if access from .dynamic in ELF or _DYNAMIC[] in C++, this > have a old pointer that not have nothing in the memory, can produce a > segmentation of fault. Please could you provide an example of how to recreate this problem. I tried a couple of tests locally but could not create a binary that would seg-fault. 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/20800] BFD Linker failing (unresolvable R_X86_64_PLTOFF64) with -mcmodel=large and --start-group
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20800 --- Comment #9 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=9d734efa1034d266249751978f95a686ec9d19c6 commit 9d734efa1034d266249751978f95a686ec9d19c6 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Mon Nov 14 10:13:03 2016 -0800 Also check GOT PLT for R_X86_64_PLTOFF64 Since "-z now" replaces PLT with GOT PLT, we should also check GOT PLT for R_X86_64_PLTOFF64 relocation. bfd/ PR ld/20800 * elf64-x86-64.c (elf_x86_64_relocate_section): Also check plt_got.offset for R_X86_64_PLTOFF64. ld/ PR ld/20800 * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr20800a.S: New file. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr20800b.S: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp: Run PR ld/20800 test. -- 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/20800] BFD Linker failing (unresolvable R_X86_64_PLTOFF64) with -mcmodel=large and --start-group
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20800 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |2.28 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed for 2.28. -- 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/20803] Sparc R_SPARC_32 reloc with miss-align offset.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20803 --- Comment #2 from Chris Johns --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #1) > Created attachment 9623 [details] > Proposed patch Thank you for the quick turn around. > > Please could you try out this patch and let me know if it is enough to > solve the problem. > Yes, this solves the problem we are seeing. > I am not sure if this approach is the correct way to fix the issue, but it > does seem to be the simplest. As far as I can tell, the relocs in the > .eh_frame section can eb unaligned, so using R_SPARC_UA32 seems to be the > correct thing to do. I did look to see if I could enable > sparc_no_align_cons when fixing the output for the .eh_frame section, but I > could not find an easy way to do this. Hence I went for a hack based on the > section name. Not very subtle, but if it works then that is enough for now. I also had a look and felt any change was a potential issue for some other reason I would not be aware of. We will use this patch in RTEMS until the next binutils release. Thank you. -- 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/20815] throw errors for invalid load segment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20815 --- Comment #2 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn --- Created attachment 9631 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9631&action=edit patch to fix the bug it seems that my zip can not open by others(but ok by me...),so re-upload each files seperately -- 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/20815] throw errors for invalid load segment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20815 --- Comment #3 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn --- Created attachment 9632 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9632&action=edit linker script to reproduce the bug it seems that my zip can not be open by others(but ok by me...),so re-upload each files seperately. -- 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/20815] throw errors for invalid load segment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20815 --- Comment #4 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn --- Created attachment 9633 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9633&action=edit a dummy main.c to reproduce 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/20823] New: invalid "tail +16c" still used
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20823 Bug ID: 20823 Summary: invalid "tail +16c" still used Product: binutils Version: 2.28 (HEAD) Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: ld Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 9634 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9634&action=edit change all "tail +16c" to "tail -c +16" When porting patches from binutils2.24 to latest 2.27, I found some old mistakes still existed. "tail" now treat operands with leading '+' as file names, as POSIX has required since 2001. But there were still some uses of "tail +16c" in binutils. Attached patch change all "tail +16c" to valid "tail +c", is that ok? -- 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/20823] invalid "tail +16c" still used
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20823 ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #9634|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #1 from ma.jiang at zte dot com.cn --- Created attachment 9635 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9635&action=edit change all "tail +16c" to "tail -c +16" sorry, please use this patch instead of the first one. -- 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
