[Bug gold/32071] undefined weak hidden function symbols resolves to garbage with PIE
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32071 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|undefined weak hidden |undefined weak hidden |function symbols resolves |function symbols resolves |to garbage |to garbage with PIE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug ld/31795] ld.bfd makes ELFs of type ET_EXEC for PIEs when load address is non-0
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31795 Nightishaman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nighti at nighti dot dev --- Comment #69 from Nightishaman --- To be fair, we shouldn't still rely on a small hack to fix a small bug. We have specifications specifically to have predictability and this seems nowhere documented in the ELF specification. Also, I think a project such as binutils, which is used by many other operating system, shouldn't be hindered by GNU/Linux because it is more popular. If you were to apply such a hack inside the Linux kernel, Torvalds would reject the commit. So please, remove this, and make ld.bfd more predictable like the other linkers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gold/32071] undefined weak hidden function symbols resolves to garbage with PIE
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32071 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-08-17 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- A patch is posted at https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-August/136394.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gold/32071] undefined weak hidden function symbols resolves to garbage with PIE
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32071 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- Here is the v2 patch: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-August/136395.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/32091] New: binutils, gas/config/tc-i386-ginsn.c:495, error: ‘ginsn_func’ may be used uninitialized
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32091 Bug ID: 32091 Summary: binutils, gas/config/tc-i386-ginsn.c:495, error: ‘ginsn_func’ may be used uninitialized Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gas Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: joserubiovidales at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- binutils master branch fails to compile after commmit d56083b5047b8e7cc9eda2f867bd2b75724920a1 The file ./gas/config/tc-i386-ginsn.c complains with error "config/tc-i386-ginsn.c:495:15: error: ‘ginsn_func’ may be used uninitialized in this function" To reproduce the issue: 1. gcc: 10.4.0 2. target: x86_64-suse-linux 3. source: https://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git 4. branch: master Build error: In file included from config/tc-i386.c:5: config/tc-i386-ginsn.c: In function ‘x86_ginsn_indirect_branch’: config/tc-i386-ginsn.c:495:15: error: ‘ginsn_func’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] 495 | ginsn = ginsn_func (insn_end_sym, true, | ^~~ 496 | GINSN_SRC_REG, dw2_regnum, NULL); | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/32091] binutils, gas/config/tc-i386-ginsn.c:495, error: ‘ginsn_func’ may be used uninitialized
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32091 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sam at gentoo dot org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/32092] New: gprofng testsuit efails with ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 Bug ID: 32092 Summary: gprofng testsuit efails with ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gprofng Assignee: vladimir.mezentsev at oracle dot com Reporter: sam at gentoo dot org Target Milestone: --- This fails for me on one machine but I'm not sure why yet. I've filed it separately from PR31116 as I suspect it's a different issue. ``` ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed Running /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/gprofng/testsuite/gprofng.display/gp-archive.exp ... Running /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/gprofng/testsuite/gprofng.display/gp-collect-app_F.exp ... Running /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/gprofng/testsuite/gprofng.display/setpath_map.exp ... === gprofng Summary === # of expected passes4 # of unresolved testcases 1 # of unsupported tests 1 make[4]: *** [Makefile:925: check-small] Error 1 make[4]: Target 'check-DEJAGNU' not remade because of errors. make[3]: *** [Makefile:792: check-am] Error 2 make[2]: *** [Makefile:472: check-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Target 'check' not remade because of errors. make[1]: *** [Makefile:7340: check-gprofng] Error 2 ``` `` $ cat tmpdir/synprog.-g-O0,-pon/display.log Current metrics: i.totalcpu:name Current Sort Metric: Inclusive Total CPU Time ( i.totalcpu ) Functions sorted by metric: Inclusive Total CPU Time Incl. Name Total CPU sec. 0.290 0.290 @0x35f5 () 0.290 commandline 0.290 cputime 0.290 main $ cat tmpdir/synprog.-g-O0,-pon/diff.out Comparison[0]: Cpu,2,0 X| Compare the acct file (first column) with the er_print output (second column): | ***Cpu***Diff % x Name |0.0000.000 0.000 0.0 X|2.9700.290 2.68090.2 x cputime $ cat tmpdir/synprog.-g-O0,-pon/test.er/warnings.xml cat: tmpdir/synprog.-g-O0,-pon/test.er/warnings.xml: No such file or directory ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug libctf/32093] New: -Walloc-size warning in ctf-hash.c
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32093
Bug ID: 32093
Summary: -Walloc-size warning in ctf-hash.c
Product: binutils
Version: unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: libctf
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: sam at gentoo dot org
Target Milestone: ---
I haven't investigated it at all, just noticed it in the log while looking at
something else.
```
libtool: compile: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/libctf
-D_GNU_SOURCE
-I/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/libctf
-I/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/libctf/../include
-I/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/libctf/../bfd
-I../bfd -DNOBFD=1 -std=gnu99 -Wall -W -Wall -Wno-narrowing -Wwrite-strings
-Wmissing-format-attribute -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wold-style-definition -pedantic -Wno-long-long -O3 -march=native
-mtls-dialect=gnu2 -fdiagnostics-color=always -pipe -Werror=strict-aliasing
-Werror=lto-type-mismatch -Werror=odr -frecord-gcc-switches -ggdb3
-fprofile-generate -flto=jobserver -ffat-lto-objects -c
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/libctf/ctf-hash.c
-fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/libctf_nobfd_la-ctf-hash.o
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/libctf/ctf-hash.c:
In function ‘ctf_dynhash_create_sized’:
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/libctf/ctf-hash.c:167:13:
warning: allocation of insufficient size ‘8’ for type ‘ctf_dynhash_t’ {aka
‘struct ctf_dynhash’} with size ‘24’ [-Walloc-size]
167 | dynhash = malloc (offsetof (ctf_dynhash_t, key_free));
| ^
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/libctf/ctf-hash.c:
In function ‘ctf_hashtab_insert’:
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.43/work/binutils-2.43/libctf/ctf-hash.c:228:15:
warning: allocation of insufficient size ‘16’ for type ‘ctf_helem_t’ {aka
‘struct ctf_helem’} with size ‘24’ [-Walloc-size]
228 | *slot = malloc (offsetof (ctf_helem_t, owner));
| ^
```
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gold/32071] undefined weak hidden function symbols resolves to garbage with PIE
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32071 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz ||illa/show_bug.cgi?id=15435, ||https://gitlab.freedesktop. ||org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_reque ||sts/29986 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug binutils/15435] Gold rejects undefined weak hidden symbol
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15435 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz ||illa/show_bug.cgi?id=32071 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/32092] gprofng testsuite fails with ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|gprofng testsuit efails |gprofng testsuite fails |with ERROR: comparison of |with ERROR: comparison of |results in synprog failed |results in synprog failed --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- I assumed the issue was -fno-semantic-interposition which I tried filtering out, but it wasn't. Let me try reproduce manually. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/31116] gprofng test fails with "comparison of results in synprog failed" on x86_64-linux-gnu
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31116 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz ||illa/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/32092] gprofng testsuite fails with ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092
--- Comment #2 from Sam James ---
I can reproduce it with C{,XX}FLAGS="-O2 -flto=jobserver" but not without LTO.
Looking at the differences.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gprofng/32092] gprofng testsuite fails with ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz ||illa/show_bug.cgi?id=31116 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
