[Bug binutils/23107] 'ar t' doesn't display object file offsets
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23107 --- Comment #4 from ant.bikineev at gmail dot com --- ping... -- 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/18616] oprofile fails with "BFD: Dwarf Error: found dwarf version '64617', this reader only handles version 2, 3 and 4 information"
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18616 --- Comment #10 from Marco Leise --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #9) > Since this is a bug about oprofile, a relevant question is: What version of > the bfd library is oprofile using? opreport is linked against libbfd-2.30.0.so and behaves the same when compiled against libbfd-2.29.1. (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #8) > objdump -WL > > I doubt if this is the same as oprofile will produce, but both tools > will be displaying processed DWARF line number information so they > should be roughly equivalent. The objdump output looks fine. Does that mean the issue has to be in Oprofile? -- 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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 --- Comment #6 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_30-branch branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=19dd615652084b2bfd81a0497864e193608037a0 commit 19dd615652084b2bfd81a0497864e193608037a0 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Fri May 18 06:43:19 2018 -0700 x86: Don't set eh->local_ref to 1 for linker defined symbols Since symbols created by HIDDEN and PROVIDE_HIDDEN assignments in linker script may be marked as defined, but not hidden, we can't set eh->local_ref to 1 in _bfd_x86_elf_link_symbol_references_local. Also R_386_GOT32X should be handled as just like R_386_GOT32 when relocating a section. The input R_386_GOT32X relocations, which can be relaxed, should have been converted to R_386_PC32, R_386_32 or R_386_GOTOFF. bfd/ PR ld/23189 * elf32-i386.c (elf_i386_relocate_section): Handle R_386_GOT32X like R_386_GOT32. * elfxx-x86.c (_bfd_x86_elf_link_symbol_references_local): Don't set eh->local_ref to 1 for linker defined symbols. ld/ PR ld/23189 * testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp: Run pr23189. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.d: New file. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.s: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.t: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.d: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.s: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.t: Likewise. (cherry picked from commit 011b32fd4270fb7111ee1f63695ccd44562ee7df) -- 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/23194] Building glibc 2.27 on 32-bit Intel with binutils 2.30 segfaults in elf subdir
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23194 --- Comment #15 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_30-branch branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=88193e0fdef1646fec917bd1ebd1f1049cae660e commit 88193e0fdef1646fec917bd1ebd1f1049cae660e Author: H.J. Lu Date: Fri May 18 14:23:41 2018 -0700 x86: Don't set eh->local_ref to 1 for versioned symbol bfd_hide_sym_by_version can't be used to check if a versioned symbol is hidden. It has to be synced with _bfd_elf_link_assign_sym_version to get the correct answer. bfd/ PR ld/23194 * elfxx-x86.c (_bfd_x86_elf_link_symbol_references_local): Don't set eh->local_ref to 1 if a symbol is versioned and there is a version script. ld/ PR ld/23194 * testsuite/ld-i386/i386.exp: Run pr23194. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23194.d: New file. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23194.map: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23194.s: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23194.d: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23194.map: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23194.s: Likewise. (cherry picked from commit 97373b2eba6077d5059370a95931b93a8b118813) -- 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/23194] Building glibc 2.27 on 32-bit Intel with binutils 2.30 segfaults in elf subdir
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23194 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |2.31 --- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed for 2.31 and on 2.30 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/23189] bad symbol index: ffffffff
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23189 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |2.31 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed for 2.31 and on 2.30 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 binutils/23199] Strip broken after update to binutils 2.30
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23199 --- Comment #13 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=bae363f1146378207e1dffe5f23845644a1d0b7a commit bae363f1146378207e1dffe5f23845644a1d0b7a Author: H.J. Lu Date: Mon May 21 19:25:19 2018 -0700 Mark section in a section group with SHF_GROUP All sections in a section group should be marked with SHF_GROUP. But some tools generate broken objects without SHF_GROUP. This patch fixes them up for objcopy and strip. PR binutils/23199 * elf.c (setup_group): Mark section in a section group with SHF_GROUP. -- 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/23201] Unnecessary dynamic relocations for HIDDEN/PROVIDE_HIDDEN symbols
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23201 --- Comment #1 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=34a87bb07a4a3b2202fc25167a6b0f12575edc87 commit 34a87bb07a4a3b2202fc25167a6b0f12575edc87 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Mon May 21 20:39:09 2018 -0700 ld: Hide symbols defined by HIDDEN/PROVIDE_HIDDEN There should be no difference in output for symbols defined by HIDDEN or PROVIDE_HIDDEN assignments whether they are explicitly marked as hidden or not. This patch adds a new BFD function, bfd_link_hide_symbol, to hide symbols defined by HIDDEN and PROVIDE_HIDDEN assignments. bfd PR ld/23201 * aout-target.h (MY_bfd_link_hide_symbol): New. * aout-tic30.c (MY_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * binary.c (binary_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * coff-alpha.c (_bfd_ecoff_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * coff-mips.c (_bfd_ecoff_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * coff-rs6000.c (_bfd_xcoff_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * coffcode.h (coff_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * elf-bfd.h (_bfd_elf_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * elfxx-target.h (bfd_elfNN_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * i386msdos.c (msdos_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * ihex.c (ihex_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * libbfd-in.h (_bfd_nolink_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * linker.c (_bfd_generic_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. (bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * mach-o-target.c (bfd_mach_o_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * mmo.c (mmo_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * pef.c (bfd_pef_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * plugin.c (bfd_plugin_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * ppcboot.c (ppcboot_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * som.c (som_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * srec.c (srec_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * tekhex.c (tekhex_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * vms-alpha.c (vms_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. (alpha_vms_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * xsym.c (bfd_sym_bfd_link_hide_symbol): Likewise. * coff64-rs6000.c (rs6000_xcoff64_vec): Add _bfd_generic_link_hide_symbol. (rs6000_xcoff64_aix_vec): Likewise. * elflink.c (bfd_elf_record_link_assignment): Don't make forced local symbol dynamic. (_bfd_elf_link_hide_symbol): New function. * elfxx-x86.c (_bfd_x86_elf_link_symbol_references_local): Don't check root.ldscript_def. * targets.c (bfd_target): Add _bfd_link_hide_symbol. (BFD_JUMP_TABLE_LINK): Add NAME##_bfd_link_hide_symbol. * bfd-in2.h: Regenerated. * libbfd.h: Likewise. ld/ PR ld/23201 * ldexp.c (exp_fold_tree_1): Call bfd_link_hide_symbol to hide a symbol. * testsuite/ld-elf/provide-hidden-dynabs.nd: Removed. * testsuite/ld-elf/provide-hidden-dynsec.nd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-elf/provide-hidden.exp: Replace provide-hidden-dynsec.nd with provide-hidden-sec.nd and provide-hidden-dyn.nd. Replace provide-hidden-dynabs.nd with provide-hidden-abs.nd and provide-hidden-dyn.nd. * testsuite/ld-i386/pr23189.d: Expect no dynamic relocation. * testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr23189.d: Likewise. -- 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/23201] Unnecessary dynamic relocations for HIDDEN/PROVIDE_HIDDEN symbols
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23201 --- Comment #2 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=29e11a0437ec618a8799dd152ee8a7b9bb9c172b commit 29e11a0437ec618a8799dd152ee8a7b9bb9c172b Author: H.J. Lu Date: Mon May 21 20:41:11 2018 -0700 ld: Adjust tic6x tests Adjust tic6x tests for removing local symbol, __c6xabi_DSBT_BASE, defined by PROVIDE_HIDDEN in linker script from dynamic symbol table. PR ld/23201 * testsuite/ld-tic6x/shlib-1.rd: Adjusted. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/shlib-1b.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/shlib-1r.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/shlib-1rb.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/shlib-app-1.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/shlib-app-1b.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/shlib-app-1r.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/shlib-app-1rb.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/shlib-noindex.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/static-app-1.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/static-app-1b.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/static-app-1r.rd: Likewise. * testsuite/ld-tic6x/static-app-1rb.rd: Likewise. -- 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/23201] Unnecessary dynamic relocations for HIDDEN/PROVIDE_HIDDEN symbols
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23201 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |2.31 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Fixed for 2.31. -- 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/23207] hppa ld SIGSEGVs on invalid object files: bfd/elf32-hppa.c:468 : hppa_get_stub_entry()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23207 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2018-05-22 Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |amodra at gmail dot com Ever confirmed|0 |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 ld/23207] hppa ld SIGSEGVs on invalid object files: bfd/elf32-hppa.c:468 : hppa_get_stub_entry()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23207 --- Comment #2 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=7455c018e45766ab7193cbd45f98f781e0dc7d84 commit 7455c018e45766ab7193cbd45f98f781e0dc7d84 Author: Alan Modra Date: Mon May 21 21:29:25 2018 +0930 PR23207, hppa ld SIGSEGVs on invalid object files We don't create PLT call stubs for anything in non-alloc sections, so it doesn't pay to go looking for them. The problem is that non-alloc sections aren't processed by group_sections and thus don't get a link_sec set up for them. PR 23207 * elf32-hppa.c (final_link_relocate): Don't look for plt call stubs in non-alloc sections. -- 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/23207] hppa ld SIGSEGVs on invalid object files: bfd/elf32-hppa.c:468 : hppa_get_stub_entry()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23207 --- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich --- Created attachment 11033 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11033&action=edit bug-2.o -- 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/23207] hppa ld SIGSEGVs on invalid object files: bfd/elf32-hppa.c:468 : hppa_get_stub_entry()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23207
--- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich ---
(In reply to cvs-com...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #2)
> The master branch has been updated by Alan Modra :
>
> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;
> h=7455c018e45766ab7193cbd45f98f781e0dc7d84
>
> commit 7455c018e45766ab7193cbd45f98f781e0dc7d84
> Author: Alan Modra
> Date: Mon May 21 21:29:25 2018 +0930
This seems to fix the minimal reproducer, but not original bug. ld still
SIGSEGVs. Bigger minimal file that still SIGSEGVs:
// $ cat bug.i
a() { b(); }
__asm__(".section .gnu.warning.");
c() { b(); }
Same steps to reproduce:
$ hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -fPIC -c bug.i -o bug.o
$ hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -shared -fPICbug.o -o libbug.so
Will attach bigger object file as well.
--
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/23207] hppa ld SIGSEGVs on invalid object files: bfd/elf32-hppa.c:468 : hppa_get_stub_entry()
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23207 --- Comment #5 from Sergei Trofimovich --- (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #4) > Created attachment 11033 [details] > bug-2.o crash backtrace for it: $ gdb --args ~/dev/git/binutils-gdb-hppa2.0/ld/ld-new -shared -o libbug.so bug.o ... (gdb) bt #0 0x555c980b in hppa_stub_name (input_section=0x0, sym_sec=0x0, hh=0x55906b50, rela=0x5591f8d0) at ../../binutils-gdb/bfd/elf32-hppa.c:469 #1 0x555cdd61 in elf32_hppa_size_stubs (output_bfd=0x55903f20, stub_bfd=0x55918580, info=0x558ebd20 , multi_subspace=0, group_size=1, add_stub_section=0x555a2b59 , layout_sections_again=0x555a2c58 ) at ../../binutils-gdb/bfd/elf32-hppa.c:2925 #2 0x555a2e07 in gldhppalinux_after_allocation () at ehppalinux.c:354 #3 0x5559af2a in ldemul_after_allocation () at ../../binutils-gdb/ld/ldemul.c:76 #4 0x55590259 in lang_process () at ../../binutils-gdb/ld/ldlang.c:7403 #5 0x5559466e in main (argc=5, argv=0x7fffcd98) at ../../binutils-gdb/ld/ldmain.c:438 -- 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
