[Bug gas/21287] Inconsistent section type for .init_array and .init_array.42
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21287 --- Comment #1 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=6f9dbcd42f2cf034a9a21f46842c08d2e88449db commit 6f9dbcd42f2cf034a9a21f46842c08d2e88449db Author: Alan Modra Date: Mon Apr 10 15:11:35 2017 +0930 PR21287, Inconsistent section type for .init_array and .init_array.42 PR21287 notes that .init_array is correctly given a type of SHT_INIT_ARRAY while .init_array.nnn gets SHT_PROGBITS. This patch fixes that problem, and properly drops warnings from the compiler that would cause the testsuite to fail. My a44d0bd78 change to check ld_compile status, necessary to pick up compile errors, also meant warnings were not ignored. bfd/ PR 21287 * elf.c (special_sections_f): Match .fini_array and .fini_array.*. (special_sections_i): Likewise for .init_array. (special_sections_p): Likewise for .preinit_array. ld/ PR 21287 * testsuite/ld-elf/init-fini-arrays.d: Match INIT_ARRAY and FINI_ARRAY. * testsuite/ld-elf/init-fini-arrays.s: Use %init_array and %fini_array section types. * testsuite/lib/ld-lib.exp (default_ld_compile): Trim assembler warnings about "ignoring incorrect section type". (run_ld_link_exec_tests, run_cc_link_tests): Delete old comment. -- 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/21287] Inconsistent section type for .init_array and .init_array.42
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21287 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |2.29 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra --- 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
[Bug ld/21334] [MIPS] Undefined hidden symbols cause assertion failure bfd/elfxx-mips.c:3860
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21334 --- Comment #7 from James Cowgill --- (In reply to Maciej W. Rozycki from comment #6) > In fact, based on the observation previously made that this function is > already inconsistently called in the `--gc-sections' case even in the > static case, making the call unconditionally should have been largely > validated by Debian packaging already, which has been using > `--gc-sections' distribution-wide across all its targets for a while now. > James, can you confirm this has been the case? `--gc-sections` isn't enabled distribution-wide. The previous bugs were from packages which enabled it manually and from the KDE / Qt packages which seem to all have it enabled as well. For the packages where it is enabled, it is of course tested on all of Debian's targets. > James and Alastair, can you please see if this updated version of the > the patch attached fixes the issue for you? Your second patch does solve the issue in supermin for me. Thanks! James -- 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/19704] Missing dynamic relocation against undefined weak symbol
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19704 --- Comment #4 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=bb1dd176fb6f38ae3cc30dc61ce55a7fbf9d0d7b commit bb1dd176fb6f38ae3cc30dc61ce55a7fbf9d0d7b Author: Qing Zhao Date: Mon Apr 10 12:46:30 2017 +0100 Port the bug fix for PR 19704 (Missing dynamic relocation against undefined weak symbol) to the SPARC architecture. * elf32-sparc.c (elf_backend_fixup_symbol): New. * elf64-sparc.c (elf_backend_fixup_symbol): New. * elfxx-sparc.c (UNDEFINED_WEAK_RESOLVED_TO_ZERO): New. (_bfd_sparc_elf_link_hash_entry): Add has_got_reloc and has_non_got_reloc. (link_hash_newfunc): Initialize has_got_reloc and has_non_got_reloc. (_bfd_sparc_elf_size_dynamic_sections): Set interp to .interp section. (_bfd_sparc_elf_copy_indirect_symbol): Copy has_got_reloc and has_non_got_reloc. (_bfd_sparc_elf_check_relocs): Set has_got_reloc and has_non_got_reloc. (_bfd_sparc_elf_fixup_symbol): New function. (allocate_dynrelocs): Don't allocate space for dynamic relocations and discard relocations against resolved undefined weak symbols in executable. Don't make resolved undefined weak symbols in executable dynamic. Keep dynamic non-GOT/non-PLT relocation against undefined weak symbols in PIE. (_bfd_sparc_elf_relocate_section): Don't generate dynamic relocations against resolved undefined weak symbols in PIE (_bfd_sparc_elf_finish_dynamic_symbol): Keep PLT/GOT entries without ynamic PLT/GOT relocations for resolved undefined weak symbols. Don't generate dynamic relocation against resolved undefined weak symbol in executable. (pie_finish_undefweak_symbol): New function. (_bfd_sparc_elf_finish_dynamic_sections): Call pie_finish_undefweak_symbol on all symbols in PIE. * elfxx-sparc.h (_bfd_sparc_elf_link_hash_table): Add interp. (_bfd_sparc_elf_fixup_symbol): New function. -- 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/21364] Dead code due to an unreachable condition in osdata.c
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21364 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||nickc at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Freddy, This is a bug in the GDB sources, not the binutils sources. Please could you refile the bug with a Product and Component of GDB ? That way it will be seen by the right people... 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/21368] New: how to succesfully build program in MinGW without this interrupting
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21368 Bug ID: 21368 Summary: how to succesfully build program in MinGW without this interrupting Product: binutils Version: 2.25 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ld Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: budikusasi at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- ld utility unrecognized option --large-address-aware -- 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
Re: binutils options
Hi Parul, > I am also able to do testing of binutils using dejaGNU. But, there are few > options for which I am stuck up and not able to test these options. These are > as follows if someone can help: > > 1.--strip-discarded > 2.--no-strip-discarded > 3.--embedded-relocs > 4.--fatal-warnings > 5.--no-fatal-warnings > 6.-fini SYMBOL > 7.--force-exe-suffix > 8.--init SYMBOL > 9.--no-undefined-version > 10. --no-warn-mismatch > 11. --no-warn-search-mismatch > 12. --spare-dynamic-tags COUNT > 13. --split-by-reloc [=COUNT] > 14. --task-link SYMBOL To be honest, I would not worry about any of these options. None of them (well except for --embedded-relocs) has any target specific effects, and so you should not need to test them for your particular port. Cheers Nick PS. The --embedded-relocs option does have a target specific effect, but it is only used by a very few targets (bfin, cr16, m68k) and I doubt if it is needed for your target. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/21368] how to succesfully build program in MinGW without this interrupting
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21368 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Budi, How was this linker configured ? The --large-address-aware option is only supported by linkers specifically configured to target COFF/PE using systems. If the option is missing then it means that the linker was built with some other target in mind. 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/21319] readelf --debug-dump=gdb_index fails to dump valid address tables
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21319 --- Comment #1 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=28d909e539567ab5ecd2bc20680e933869fdf889 commit 28d909e539567ab5ecd2bc20680e933869fdf889 Author: John Delsignor Date: Mon Apr 10 16:27:05 2017 +0100 Prevent a bigus warning from readelf about a gdb-index table being too big. PR binutils/21319 * dwarf.c (display_gdb_index): Correct test for a corrupt address table 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
[Bug binutils/21319] readelf --debug-dump=gdb_index fails to dump valid address tables
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21319 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||nickc at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton --- Hi John, Thanks for the bug report and patch. I have gone ahead and applied the patch. 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/21290] nm should distinguish TLS variables
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21290 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||nickc at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton --- Hi Tom, Well given that you can achieve the result you desire using the current code, I do not think that it would be wise to add new code in to nm. In my copious free time I would like to extend the binutils documentation to describe the differences between the output formats, but that is going to have to be a low priority job for now. 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/19579] [Regression] link error linking fortran code with PIE
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19579 --- Comment #22 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_28-branch branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=5a0ac7ba3c5277b3ab04f55de23bccb7614a9e59 commit 5a0ac7ba3c5277b3ab04f55de23bccb7614a9e59 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Fri Apr 7 07:40:14 2017 -0700 ELF: Check ELF_COMMON_DEF_P for common symbols Since common symbols that are turned into definitions don't have the DEF_REGULAR flag set, we need to check ELF_COMMON_DEF_P for common symbols. bfd/ PR ld/19579 PR ld/21306 * elf32-s390.c (elf_s390_finish_dynamic_symbol): Check ELF_COMMON_DEF_P for common symbols. * elf64-s390.c (elf_s390_finish_dynamic_symbol): Likewise. * elf64-x86-64.c (elf_x86_64_relocate_section): Likewise. * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_merge_symbol): Revert commits 202ac193bbbecc96a4978d1ac3d17148253f9b01 and 07492f668d2173da7a2bda3707ff0985e0f460b6. ld/ PR ld/19579 PR ld/21306 * testsuite/ld-elf/pr19579a.c (main): Updated. (cherry picked from commit 8170f7693bc0a9442c0aa280197925db92d48ca6) -- 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/21306] Different behavior when linking common symbol statically or to shared object
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21306 --- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_28-branch branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=5a0ac7ba3c5277b3ab04f55de23bccb7614a9e59 commit 5a0ac7ba3c5277b3ab04f55de23bccb7614a9e59 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Fri Apr 7 07:40:14 2017 -0700 ELF: Check ELF_COMMON_DEF_P for common symbols Since common symbols that are turned into definitions don't have the DEF_REGULAR flag set, we need to check ELF_COMMON_DEF_P for common symbols. bfd/ PR ld/19579 PR ld/21306 * elf32-s390.c (elf_s390_finish_dynamic_symbol): Check ELF_COMMON_DEF_P for common symbols. * elf64-s390.c (elf_s390_finish_dynamic_symbol): Likewise. * elf64-x86-64.c (elf_x86_64_relocate_section): Likewise. * elflink.c (_bfd_elf_merge_symbol): Revert commits 202ac193bbbecc96a4978d1ac3d17148253f9b01 and 07492f668d2173da7a2bda3707ff0985e0f460b6. ld/ PR ld/19579 PR ld/21306 * testsuite/ld-elf/pr19579a.c (main): Updated. (cherry picked from commit 8170f7693bc0a9442c0aa280197925db92d48ca6) -- 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/19579] [Regression] link error linking fortran code with PIE
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19579 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed for master and 2.28 branch. -- 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/21306] Different behavior when linking common symbol statically or to shared object
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21306 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed for master and 2.28 branch. -- 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/21306] Different behavior when linking common symbol statically or to shared object
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21306 Bug 21306 depends on bug 19579, which changed state. Bug 19579 Summary: [Regression] link error linking fortran code with PIE https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19579 What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |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
[Bug ld/21368] how to succesfully build program in MinGW without this interrupting
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21368 --- Comment #2 from Budi --- Great! I begin to get it. I actually tried to build Golden dictionary app on Windows 64bit by loading the source from Github, then after completing all Msys2 & Mingw64, also Qt Creator and Qt 5.8 pacman loads & installations, then run Qt creator for Goldendict.pro, configure the system build and click "Build".. but then it report that error while running ld.exe What's actually happening here, would you please sincerely help me guide me step by step ? On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:08 PM, nickc at redhat dot com < sourceware-bugzi...@sourceware.org> wrote: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21368 > > Nick Clifton changed: > >What|Removed |Added > > > CC||nickc at redhat dot com > > --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- > Hi Budi, > > How was this linker configured ? > > The --large-address-aware option is only supported by linkers > specifically > configured to target COFF/PE using systems. If the option is missing then > it > means that the linker was built with some other target in mind. > > Cheers > Nick > > -- > 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
