[Bug gas/29004] various bugs in RISCV version of as
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29004 Mark Manning changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|various bugs in RISCV |various bugs in RISCV |version |version of as -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/29006] alloc(): invalid size (unsorted) with -fstack-protector -lssp
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29006 Nick Clifton changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com CC||nickc at redhat dot com --- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton --- Created attachment 14045 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14045&action=edit Proposed Patch Hi Sandro, Are you able to try out a patch ? I have uploaded a possible fix, based upon the backtrace in the log you supplied, but I do not have a suitable environment to run the test for myself... Cheers Nick -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Issue 43142 in oss-fuzz: binutils:fuzz_readelf: Timeout in fuzz_readelf
Updates: Labels: -restrict-view-commit -deadline-approaching Deadline-Exceeded Comment #3 on issue 43142 by sheriffbot: binutils:fuzz_readelf: Timeout in fuzz_readelf https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=43142#c3 This bug has exceeded our disclosure deadline. It has been opened to the public. - Your friendly Sheriffbot -- You received this message because: 1. You were specifically CC'd on the issue You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://bugs.chromium.org/hosting/settings Reply to this email to add a comment.
[Bug binutils/29014] New: Documentation correction
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29014 Bug ID: 29014 Summary: Documentation correction Product: binutils Version: pre-2.12 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P2 Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: crh883 at utulsa dot edu Target Milestone: --- Looks like this may be obsolete in later versions (?), but at least in one of the first documentation hits on google the typedef asymbol flags list is missing flag 0x4. Here's a link to the documentation that I noticed it in: https://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/bfd-2.9.1/html_mono/bfd.html#TOC57. You might also consider adding version numbers to documentation, especially if large changes are made. (For example, the documentation on [this](https://doc.ecoscentric.com/gnutools/doc/bfd/typedef-asymbol.html#typedef-asymbol) page suggests a completely different structure of the flags, which may be from an earlier (or later) version?) Might also add something like the following to better clarify that the define list is indeed flag types and that they are/can be stacked: /* Values defined below are those that make up the flags field of a symbol table symbol. They indicate the classification of the symbol and are not mutually exclusive (one symbol may have multiple types). Values seen in a given symbol's flag field are the sum of all relevant flags that pertain to a that particular symbol. */ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/29015] New: On Intel Skylake the call tree is incorrect
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29015 Bug ID: 29015 Summary: On Intel Skylake the call tree is incorrect Product: binutils Version: 2.39 (HEAD) Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gprofng Assignee: vladimir.mezentsev at oracle dot com Reporter: ruud.vanderpas at oracle dot com Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 14046 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14046&action=edit This directory contains everything needed to reproduce the problem. The call tree output is not correct for this example I ran on an Intel Skylake based system. The code has been parallelized using Pthreads and we should see function "start_thread" in the call tree. It is not there though and this looks like an issue related to stack unwind. This is the output I get: Functions Call Tree. Metric: Attributed Total CPU Time Attr. Name Total CPU sec. 4.827 +- 4.712+-collector_root 4.712| +-driver_mxv 4.712|+-mxv_core 0.116+-__libc_start_main 0.116 +-main 0.106+-init_data 0.050| +-drand48 0.039|+-erand48_r 0.014| +-__drand48_iterate 0.010+-allocate_data 0.010 +-malloc 0.010+-_int_malloc 0.003 +-sysmalloc 0.002+-__default_morecore 0.002 +-sbrk 0.002+-brk I used gcc 10 and did not enable any optimizations, but I also see this problem if I use -O for example. On an older Intel Haswell based system, I do see start_thread in the call tree. The attachment has everything needed to reproduce the problem. The code is in directory "src" and can be built with "make". On purpose I left my objects and the binary in, as well as the experiment directory. There is a run.sh script that was used to show the problem. Sample output of this script is in run.res. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/29010] libbfd has quadratic processing time for large debug info
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29010 Travis Downs changed: What|Removed |Added CC||travis.downs at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from Travis Downs --- I believe this was introduced in: https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=abe2a28aaa7a2bfd0f3061c72a98eb898976b721 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27484 So it applies in 2.36 forwards. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/29010] libbfd has quadratic processing time for large debug info
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29010 Travis Downs changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/29015] On Intel Skylake the call tree is incorrect
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29015 Ruud van der Pas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ruud.vanderpas at oracle dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
