[Bug ld/25389] New: - -Wl,--wrap -fuse-ld=bfd not supported with LTO
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25389
Bug ID: 25389
Summary: - -Wl,--wrap -fuse-ld=bfd not supported with LTO
Product: binutils
Version: 2.33
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: cuilili8868 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
$ cat a.c
int w = 100;
int z = 78;
extern int foo()
{
return w + z;
}
extern int main()
{
return foo() + foo() * foo();
}
$ cat b.c
int x = 76;
int y = 87;
#define likely(z) __builtin_expect(!!(z), 1)
extern int __wrap_foo()
{
if (likely(x)) {
return __real_foo();
}
int i,s;
for (i = 0; i < 1; i++)
s = s + x * y - i;
}
$gcc -flto -fuse-ld=bfd -Wl,--wrap=foo a.c b.c
/tmp/ccPX4lh2.ltrans0.ltrans.o: in function `__wrap_foo':
:(.text+0x6a): undefined reference to `foo'
gcc version: 7.4.0 or gcc trunk
binutils version: 2.33 or binutils trunk
I tried different configurations, this works
gcc -flto -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--wrap=read -O3 a.c b.c
gcc -flto -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--wrap=read -O2 a.c b.c
gcc -flto -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--wrap=read -O1 a.c b.c
This does not work:
gcc -flto -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,--wrap=read -O0 a.c b.c
gcc -flto -fuse-ld=bfd -Wl,--wrap=read -O3 a.c b.c
gcc -flto -fuse-ld=bfd -Wl,--wrap=read -O2 a.c b.c
gcc -flto -fuse-ld=bfd -Wl,--wrap=read -O1 a.c b.c
gcc -flto -fuse-ld=bfd -Wl,--wrap=read -O0 a.c b.c
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/25389] - -Wl,--wrap -fuse-ld=bfd not supported with LTO
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25389 cuilili changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cuilili8868 at gmail dot com, ||hjl.tools at gmail dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/25371] [objcopy] add support for setting SHF_EXCLUDE flag for sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25371 --- Comment #2 from dsn1234 at gmail dot com --- Looks good to me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/25384] Copy relocations and BIND_NOW on POWER ELFv1 results in crashes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25384 --- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer --- I believe later GCC (I tried 7) uses .data.relro with -O0 and the __pthread_key_create-based single thread detection, not .rodata. This means that the current toolchain is consistent and does not produce text relocations. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/25243] static linking with exceptions and iostream is broken on ARM
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25243 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Alan Modra --- Closing as fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/20694] PDP11 TARGET_PAGE_SIZE is incorrect
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20694 --- 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=0d1cc75df1c9a356dfa47932e9ec52fca7d8f5ab commit 0d1cc75df1c9a356dfa47932e9ec52fca7d8f5ab Author: Lars Brinkhoff Date: Wed Jan 15 14:18:54 2020 + Set the default page size of the PDP11 target to 8192 bytes. PR 20694 bfd * pdp11.c (TARGET_PAGE_SIZE): Set to 8192. ld * temulparams/pdp11.sh (TARGET_PAGE_SIZE): Set to 8192. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/20694] PDP11 TARGET_PAGE_SIZE is incorrect
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20694 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||nickc at redhat dot com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton --- Patch applied. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/25371] [objcopy] add support for setting SHF_EXCLUDE flag for sections
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25371 Fangrui Song changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i at maskray dot me --- Comment #3 from Fangrui Song --- We don't have precedent for +flag or -flag. Isn't it an overkill to invent the +- prefix and use +exclude and -exclude? Other than .debug_*.dwo and an LLVM extension .linker-options, I can't think of any use cases of SHF_EXCLUDE. Nobody will --set-section-flags on .debug_*.dwo . I'd prefer treating 'exclude' like other flags such as 'alloc','readonly','data'... I can send a patch for this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
