[Bug binutils/25644] New: binutils source package missing binutils.info file

[psmith at gnu dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25644

Bug ID: 25644
   Summary: binutils source package missing binutils.info file
   Product: binutils
   Version: 2.34
Status: NEW
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P2
 Component: binutils
  Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
  Reporter: psmith at gnu dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

The source tarball for binutils 2.34 is missing the binutils.info file.  This
means that the source cannot be built on any system unless it first installs
the makeinfo program and its prerequisites.

Making info in doc
/work/src/cc/binutils-2.34/missing: line 81: makeinfo: command not found
WARNING: 'makeinfo' is missing on your system.
 You should only need it if you modified a '.texi' file, or
 any other file indirectly affecting the aspect of the manual.
 You might want to install the Texinfo package:
 
 The spurious makeinfo call might also be the consequence of
 using a buggy 'make' (AIX, DU, IRIX), in which case you might
 want to install GNU make:
 
make[5]: *** [Makefile:474: binutils.info] Error 127
make[4]: *** [Makefile:1134: info-recursive] Error 1
make[3]: *** [Makefile:3633: all-binutils] Error 2

/work/src/cc/binutils-2.34$ find -name \*.info
./ld/ld.info
./gprof/gprof.info
./bfd/doc/bfd.info
./gas/doc/as.info
./binutils/sysroff.info

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/25491] binutils 2.34 tarball requires makeinfo

[sch...@linux-m68k.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25491

Andreas Schwab  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||psmith at gnu dot org

--- Comment #6 from Andreas Schwab  ---
*** Bug 25644 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/25644] binutils source package missing binutils.info file

[sch...@linux-m68k.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25644

Andreas Schwab  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
 Status|NEW |RESOLVED

--- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab  ---
dup

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 25491 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #33 from H.J. Lu  ---
(In reply to Kaylee from comment #31)
> Yep, I'm not getting the warning with the new version.
> 
> Also the test case that I mentioned failed appears to be
> ld/testsuite/ld-x86-64/pr17618.d, which I think is probably unrelated.

I fixed a couple bugs on users/hjl/pr25617/master branch.  I think it is
ready for master.  Please give it some more thorough tests.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug binutils/25644] binutils source package missing binutils.info file

[psmith at gnu dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25644

--- Comment #2 from psmith at gnu dot org ---
Hm. I searched for "binutils.info" in bugzilla before filing my bug but nothing
showed up... thanks for the link.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #36 from H.J. Lu  ---
(In reply to Kaylee from comment #34)
> I'm getting several failures:
> 
> > FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (-z nosectionheader, none)
> > FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (PIE, -z nosectionheader, none)
> > FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (-z nosectionheader, objcopy)
> > FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (PIE, -z nosectionheader, objcopy)
> > FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (-z nosectionheader, strip)
> > FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (PIE, -z nosectionheader, strip)
> 
> Looking at the logs, they all have this:
> 
> > extra lines in dump.out starting with "^1000 T _init$"

How can I reproduce it? Do they fail on master branch?

> Also I've managed to get the log for the sporadic x86-64.exp failure I
> mentioned, and it's just failing to allocate the 2GB it needs because I
> don't happen to have that amount free, so that's nothing to worry about.

Good to know.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #37 from H.J. Lu  ---
(In reply to Kaylee from comment #35)
> There are a couple of typos in the comments: "symbol stable", "string
> stable", and "memory chekers".

Fixed on users/hjl/pr25617/master branch.  Thanks.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[klkblake at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #38 from Kaylee  ---
> How can I reproduce it? Do they fail on master branch?

Yeah, they fail on master for me.

Additionally, I've just found out that ld segfaults when trying to link against
a shared object with GNU_PROPERTY_NO_COPY_ON_PROTECTED and no section headers;
am looking into it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[klkblake at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #35 from Kaylee  ---
There are a couple of typos in the comments: "symbol stable", "string stable",
and "memory chekers".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[klkblake at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #39 from Kaylee  ---
Created attachment 12359
  --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12359&action=edit
testcase for GNU_PROPERTY_NO_COPY_ON_PROTECTED segfault

The attached file exports an `int foo`, linking against it will segfault ld.

It seems like it is segfaulting because it's calling SYMBOL_NO_COPYRELOC(info,
eh), which is doing checks on members of `(EH)->elf.root.u.def.section->owner`,
but this is set to NULL.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[klkblake at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #34 from Kaylee  ---
I'm getting several failures:

> FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (-z nosectionheader, none)
> FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (PIE, -z nosectionheader, none)
> FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (-z nosectionheader, objcopy)
> FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (PIE, -z nosectionheader, objcopy)
> FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (-z nosectionheader, strip)
> FAIL: Build pr22393-2 (PIE, -z nosectionheader, strip)

Looking at the logs, they all have this:

> extra lines in dump.out starting with "^1000 T _init$"

Also I've managed to get the log for the sporadic x86-64.exp failure I
mentioned, and it's just failing to allocate the 2GB it needs because I don't
happen to have that amount free, so that's nothing to worry about.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #40 from H.J. Lu  ---
(In reply to Kaylee from comment #39)
> Created attachment 12359 [details]
> testcase for GNU_PROPERTY_NO_COPY_ON_PROTECTED segfault
> 
> The attached file exports an `int foo`, linking against it will segfault ld.
> 
> It seems like it is segfaulting because it's calling
> SYMBOL_NO_COPYRELOC(info, eh), which is doing checks on members of
> `(EH)->elf.root.u.def.section->owner`, but this is set to NULL.

How do I use it to reproduce linker segfault?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #41 from H.J. Lu  ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #40)
> (In reply to Kaylee from comment #39)
> > Created attachment 12359 [details]
> > testcase for GNU_PROPERTY_NO_COPY_ON_PROTECTED segfault
> > 
> > The attached file exports an `int foo`, linking against it will segfault ld.
> > 
> > It seems like it is segfaulting because it's calling
> > SYMBOL_NO_COPYRELOC(info, eh), which is doing checks on members of
> > `(EH)->elf.root.u.def.section->owner`, but this is set to NULL.
> 
> How do I use it to reproduce linker segfault?

Never mind.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/25617] ld should reconstruct dynamic symbol table from PT_DYNAMIC when there is no section header

[hjl.tools at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25617

--- Comment #42 from H.J. Lu  ---
(In reply to Kaylee from comment #39)
> Created attachment 12359 [details]
> testcase for GNU_PROPERTY_NO_COPY_ON_PROTECTED segfault
> 
> The attached file exports an `int foo`, linking against it will segfault ld.
> 
> It seems like it is segfaulting because it's calling
> SYMBOL_NO_COPYRELOC(info, eh), which is doing checks on members of
> `(EH)->elf.root.u.def.section->owner`, but this is set to NULL.

Fixed on users/hjl/pr25617/master branch.  I will add a testcase later.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.