[Bug binutils/26093] New: Typo in strings man page

2020-06-08 Thread matthias at bullbytes dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26093

Bug ID: 26093
   Summary: Typo in strings man page
   Product: binutils
   Version: 2.34
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: enhancement
  Priority: P2
 Component: binutils
  Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
  Reporter: matthias at bullbytes dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

There's a typo in the man page of strings, section "DESCRIPTION":

"If the file type in unrecognizable, ..."

should be:

"If the file type is unrecognizable, ..."

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


[Bug binutils/26086] objdump: SIGSEGV in process_debug_info

2020-06-08 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26086

--- 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=c4b2f181c3d2ddc681ce42bf60bfa874e44b1cfe

commit c4b2f181c3d2ddc681ce42bf60bfa874e44b1cfe
Author: Nick Clifton 
Date:   Mon Jun 8 11:24:06 2020 +0100

Fix an illegal memory access when parsing corrupt DWARF debug information.

PR 26086
* dwarf.c (process_debug_info): Check that there is space in the
debug_information array before filling in an entry.

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


[Bug binutils/26086] objdump: SIGSEGV in process_debug_info

2020-06-08 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26086

Nick Clifton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nickc at redhat dot com
 Resolution|--- |FIXED
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton  ---
Hi Weiting,

  Thanks very much for reporting this bug.  I have checked in a small
  patch that will fix the problem.

Cheers
  Nick

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


[Bug binutils/26087] objdump --reloc does not work

2020-06-08 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26087

Nick Clifton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nickc at redhat dot com
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton  ---
Hi Martin,

  This is due to a difference in the behaviour of readelf and objdump.
  With readelf with --relocs option will dump both static relocs and
  dynamic relocs.  With objdump the --reloc option will *only* dump
  static relocs.  If you want to see the dynamic relocs you need to 
  use the --dynamic-reloc option.  Vis:

  $ objdump --dynamic-reloc relocoverwrite

/home/nickc/Downloads/relocoverwrite: file format elf64-x86-64

DYNAMIC RELOCATION RECORDS
OFFSET   TYPE  VALUE 
3de0 R_X86_64_RELATIVE  *ABS*+0x1240
3de8 R_X86_64_RELATIVE  *ABS*+0x11f0
4048 R_X86_64_RELATIVE  *ABS*+0x4048
3fd0 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT  _ITM_deregisterTMCloneTable
3fd8 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT  printf@GLIBC_2.2.5
3fe0 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT  __libc_start_main@GLIBC_2.2.5
3fe8 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT  __gmon_start__
3ff0 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT  _ITM_registerTMCloneTable
3ff8 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT  __cxa_finalize@GLIBC_2.2.5
4050 R_X86_64_COPY stdout@@GLIBC_2.2.5
4060 R_X86_64_COPY stdin@@GLIBC_2.2.5
4018 R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT  puts@GLIBC_2.2.5
4020 R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT  __stack_chk_fail@GLIBC_2.4
4028 R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT  read@GLIBC_2.2.5
4030 R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT  setvbuf@GLIBC_2.2.5
4038 R_X86_64_JUMP_SLOT  __isoc99_scanf@GLIBC_2.7


Cheers
  Nick

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


[Bug binutils/26093] Typo in strings man page

2020-06-08 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26093

--- 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=b37a7714400cdc264ed236f72668b8956477b2ed

commit b37a7714400cdc264ed236f72668b8956477b2ed
Author: Nick Clifton 
Date:   Mon Jun 8 11:32:15 2020 +0100

Fix a typo in the description of the strings program.

PR 26093
* doc/binutils.texi (strings): Fix typo.

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


[Bug binutils/26093] Typo in strings man page

2020-06-08 Thread nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26093

Nick Clifton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 CC||nickc at redhat dot com
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton  ---
Hi Matthias,

  Thanks for pointing out this typo.  I have checked in your suggested
  correction.

Cheers
  Nick

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


[Bug ld/26065] binutils-gdb/ld/testsuite/ld-elf symbolic tests dl4e and dl4f fail

2020-06-08 Thread amodra at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26065

Alan Modra  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Target|aarch64-*   |aarch64-*, powerpc64*-*
Summary|aarch64:|binutils-gdb/ld/testsuite/l
   |binutils-gdb/ld/testsuite/l |d-elf symbolic tests dl4e
   |d-elf symbolic tests dl4e   |and dl4f fail
   |and dl4f fail   |
   Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org   |amodra at gmail dot com
   Target Milestone|--- |2.35

--- Comment #5 from Alan Modra  ---
After binutils commit bb68f22c8e the tests fail on powerpc64le-linux too.  As
far as I can tell, the testcase doesn't really have a correct answer.  If
linking against a -Bsymbolic or --dynamic-list library results in two copies of
foo1 and foo2, one in the main program and one in the shared library, then you
get the "OK2, OK4" results.  If linking against such a library only results in
one copy of foo1 and foo2 (just in the library) then you get the "OK1, OK3"
results.  What you get depends on default compiler behaviour for your target. 
On powerpc64le-linux we always generate PIC, and that allows the dl4main.c to
use the shared library foo1 and foo2.

Even on x86_64:
$ gcc -o tmpdir/dl4main.o -fno-PIE -O2 -c dl4main.c
$ gcc -o tmpdir/dl4e -no-pie -B tmpdir/ld/ tmpdir/dl4main.o tmpdir/libdl4e.so
$ tmpdir/dl4e
bar OK2
bar OK4
DSO1
DSO2
OK2
OK4
$ gcc -o tmpdir/dl4main.o -fPIE -O2 -c dl4main.c
$ gcc -o tmpdir/dl4e -pie -B tmpdir/ld/ tmpdir/dl4main.o tmpdir/libdl4e.so
$ tmpdir/dl4e
bar OK2
bar OK4
DSO1
DSO2
OK2
OK4
$ gcc -o tmpdir/dl4main.o -fPIC -O2 -c dl4main.c
$ gcc -o tmpdir/dl4e -pie -B tmpdir/ld/ tmpdir/dl4main.o tmpdir/libdl4e.so
$ tmpdir/dl4e
bar OK1
bar OK3
DSO1
DSO2
OK1
OK3

I'm leaning towards compiling dl4main.c -fPIC to resolve this bug.

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