[Bug ld/27050] New: [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 Bug ID: 27050 Summary: [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore Product: binutils Version: 2.36 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ld Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: doko at debian dot org Target Milestone: --- works with the 2.35 branch, fails with the trunk: $ ld.gold -pie ld.gold: fatal error: no input files $ ld.gold -no-pie ld.gold: fatal error: no input files $ ld.bfd -pie ld.bfd: no input files $ ld.bfd -no-pie ld.bfd: Error: unable to disambiguate: -no-pie (did you mean --no-pie ?) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27047] bss section not supported for target z80-unknown-elf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047 Pete Moore changed: What|Removed |Added Target||z80-unknown-elf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27047] bss section not supported for target z80-unknown-elf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047 Pete Moore changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sergey.belyashov at gmail dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27047] bss section not supported for target z80-unknown-elf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047 --- Comment #1 from Sergey Belyashov --- .bss section is supported. But .bss pseudo operation is not supported. You can create .bss section using .section pseudo operation. Just try: $ cat a.s .section .bss myvar: .ds 2 $ z80-unknown-elf-as a.s $ z80-unknown-elf-readelf -t a.out ... [ 3] .bss NOBITS 34 02 00 0 0 1 [0003]: WRITE, ALLOC ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27050] [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com, ||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- It is caused by commit 983d925db6a09ac90f6bed90be16eb69267b58e0 Author: Nick Clifton Date: Mon Oct 5 13:53:59 2020 +0100 Update the BFD linker so that it deprecates grouped short options. * lexsup.c (parse_args): Generate an error or warning message when multiple short options are used together. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27050] [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Target Milestone|--- |2.36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27050] [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- $ valgrind ./ld/ld-new -no-pie ==290969== Memcheck, a memory error detector ==290969== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al. ==290969== Using Valgrind-3.16.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info ==290969== Command: ./ld/ld-new -no-pie ==290969== ==290969== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==290969==at 0x409A96: parse_args (lexsup.c:749) ==290969==by 0x403DC6: main (ldmain.c:370) ==290969== ./ld/ld-new: Error: unable to disambiguate: -no-pie (did you mean --no-pie ?) ==290969== ==290969== HEAP SUMMARY: ==290969== in use at exit: 21,161 bytes in 10 blocks ==290969== total heap usage: 72 allocs, 62 frees, 43,232 bytes allocated ==290969== ==290969== LEAK SUMMARY: ==290969==definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==290969==indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==290969== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==290969==still reachable: 21,161 bytes in 10 blocks ==290969== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==290969== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory ==290969== ==290969== Use --track-origins=yes to see where uninitialised values come from ==290969== For lists of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -s ==290969== ERROR SUMMARY: 2 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27050] [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- longind may not be set by getopt_long_only: diff --git a/ld/lexsup.c b/ld/lexsup.c index 0d10bc6fba..60e3f7d8b5 100644 --- a/ld/lexsup.c +++ b/ld/lexsup.c @@ -735,6 +735,7 @@ parse_args (unsigned argc, char **argv) /* getopt_long_only is like getopt_long, but '-' as well as '--' can indicate a long option. */ opterr = 0; + longind = -1; last_optind = optind; optc = getopt_long_only (argc, argv, shortopts, longopts, &longind); if (optc == '?') -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27050] [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- LONGIND returns the index in LONGOPT of the long-named option found. It is only valid when a long-named option has been found by the most recent call. Since the long option isn't found, LONGIND is undefined. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27047] .bss pseudo operation not supported for target z80-unknown-elf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047 Pete Moore changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|bss section not supported |.bss pseudo operation not |for target z80-unknown-elf |supported for target ||z80-unknown-elf --- Comment #2 from Pete Moore --- Many thanks Sergey! That helps me a lot. I've retitled the bug to reflect the true situation. I guess it isn't critical that the .bss pseudo operation is supported, although it might be nice (e.g. I believe that `.text` is supported). Feel free to close if you don't think it is worth doing, or is very complicated to add. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27047] .bss pseudo operation not supported for target z80-unknown-elf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047 --- Comment #3 from Sergey Belyashov --- Created attachment 13038 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13038&action=edit Add .bss instruction support This patch adds support for .bss directive. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27050] [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton --- Not to be facetious but did we ever really support -no-pie ? It does not appear to be documented, and it looks like it is treated internally as two options: -n and -o-pie. I have a patch that fixes the uninitialised memory problem detected by valgrind, but I am wondering whether it is better to add explicit support for -no-pie as an option to turn off -pie, or else keep the linker's error message, and maybe add a --no-pie option instead. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27050] [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #5) > Not to be facetious but did we ever really support -no-pie ? > ld/testsuite/config/default.exp: set NOPIE_LDFLAGS "-no-pie" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27050] [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Klose --- that was reported for qemu: ./configure:# Check we support --no-pie first; we will need this for building ROMs. ./configure:if compile_prog "-Werror -fno-pie" "-no-pie"; then ./configure: LDFLAGS_NOPIE="-no-pie" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/27050] [2.36 Regression] ld -no-pie not recognized anymore
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27050 --- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab --- That's the *compiler* flag. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27047] .bss pseudo operation not supported for target z80-unknown-elf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton --- Created attachment 13039 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13039&action=edit Proposed patch I do not think that we need to support sub-sections of the .bss section, so how about this version instead ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27047] .bss pseudo operation not supported for target z80-unknown-elf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047 --- Comment #5 from Sergey Belyashov --- I think, it is OK. I just took code from blackfin source. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27047] .bss pseudo operation not supported for target z80-unknown-elf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047 --- Comment #6 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=14a772212b8e8e19b45a23e2dacb61ceff0d4979 commit 14a772212b8e8e19b45a23e2dacb61ceff0d4979 Author: Nick Clifton Date: Fri Dec 11 16:49:38 2020 + Add support for the .bss pseudo-op to the Z80 assembler. PR 27047 * config/tc-z80.c (s_bss): New function. (md_pseudo_table): Add bss entry. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/27047] .bss pseudo operation not supported for target z80-unknown-elf
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27047 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton --- OK, patch applied. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27057] New: binutils 2.24, 2.35 do not build on Solaris 11.4
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27057 Bug ID: 27057 Summary: binutils 2.24, 2.35 do not build on Solaris 11.4 Product: binutils Version: 2.36 (HEAD) Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: progman3k at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 13040 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13040&action=edit Configure stage Whether using ./configure && make or CC=gcc ./configure && make Configuring succeeds, but all versions tested fail during build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27057] binutils 2.24, 2.35 do not build on Solaris 11.4
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27057 --- Comment #1 from progman3k at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 13044 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13044&action=edit Build stage -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27057] binutils 2.24, 2.35 do not build on Solaris 11.4
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27057 --- Comment #2 from progman3k at gmail dot com --- I have no idea why the system seems to think the attached file "Build stage" is a binary file, but it is the log output from the terminal of the messages from building -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27057] binutils 2.24, 2.35 do not build on Solaris 11.4
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27057 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-12-12 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Try GNU make -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/27057] binutils 2.24, 2.35 do not build on Solaris 11.4
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27057 --- Comment #4 from progman3k at gmail dot com --- Using gmake does indeed build! The only problem is that it is not mentioned in the README. Maybe amend the documentation to mention that on some systems, one must use gmake. Also maybe add instructions to build windres, because it doesn't build by default. I got it to build by going in the binutils subfolder beneath the root folder and typing gmake windres Thank you very much for your assistance! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
