[Bug ld/12565] NOLOAD sections empty
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12565 Christian Bruel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #21 from Christian Bruel --- hello, A little up. For 2.24.51.0.3 We have another usage of NOLOAD with a port of the remote proc framework. If the behavior to clear a NOLOAD section is confirmed, an update of documentation would indeed help. This one was quite confusing, in particular after a change in behavior -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/17505] New: arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 Bug ID: 17505 Summary: arm: bad static label resolution from different modes Product: binutils Version: 2.24 Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ld Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org Created attachment 7843 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7843&action=edit test to reproduce While working on the attribute_target GCC attribute, I find myself calling a static THUMB function while in ARM mode, or vice versa. (this works fine when functions are .global) Using the attached .s example, with foo: .thumb_func .typebar, %function the relocations are in the object : : 0:ebfe bl0 0: R_ARM_CALLfoo 4:ebfe bl0 4: R_ARM_CALLbar is resolved in the final binary as: Disassembly of section .text: 8018 : 8018:eb85 bl8234 801c:fa84 blx8234 instead of bl What is surprising is that the linker correctly patches the BL/BLX instructions, itś just the address that is wrong. I´m wondering i f this can be fixed in the linker machinery to handle interwork or have the assembly emit a R_ARM_THM_CALL reloc assembled/linked with : arm-none-eabi-gcc 1.s -o 1.u -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 --- Comment #2 from Christian Bruel --- Created attachment 7866 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7866&action=edit tentative patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 --- Comment #1 from Christian Bruel --- Encoding a BFD_RELOC_ARM_PCREL_BLX instead of a BFD_RELOC_ARM_PCREL_CALL for static calls between arm to thumb fixed the problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 --- Comment #4 from Christian Bruel --- Created attachment 7868 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7868&action=edit the c input causing the situation, for reference (need attribute target support) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 --- Comment #3 from Christian Bruel --- Created attachment 7867 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7867&action=edit New test compiles with arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv7-a 1.s previous objdump was : 801c:eb8a bl824c 8020:e1a03000 movr3, r0 8024:fa8c blx825c 8028:e0833000 addr3, r3, r0 802c:eb89 bl8258 now : 801c:eb8a bl824c 8020:e1a03000 movr3, r0 8024:fa8a blx8254 8028:e0833000 addr3, r3, r0 802c:eb89 bl8258 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 --- Comment #6 from Christian Bruel --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5) > (In reply to Christian Bruel from comment #1) > > Encoding a BFD_RELOC_ARM_PCREL_BLX instead of a BFD_RELOC_ARM_PCREL_CALL for > > static calls between arm to thumb fixed the problem. > > That sounds wrong. it is indeed, fixed locally but many other regressions. > > Which architecture revision are you targeting? v7 and v5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505
--- Comment #8 from Christian Bruel ---
sorry, the first test was only illustrative, but not completed. the fact that
the addresses are the same is just because I reduced the code.
Here is the complete attachment, here the code is :
8240 :
8240:e30b3178 movwr3, #45432; 0xb178
8244:e3e0207e mvnr2, #126; 0x7e
8248:e3403001 movtr3, #1
824c:e5933000 ldrr3, [r3]
8250:e5c32000 strbr2, [r3]
8254:e12fff1e bxlr
8258 :
8258:4770 bxlr
825a:bf00 nop
and main calls :
8018 :
8018:e92d4010 push{r4, lr}
801c:fa93 blx8270
8020:eb86 bl8240
8024:e3a0 movr0, #0
8028:e8bd8010 pop{r4, pc}
so
blbar
is in the .o
4:eb04 bl30
4: R_ARM_CALLbar
instead of just bl30 <0x18>
looks like a wrong addend to the start of the section.
to reproduce:
arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv7-a 2.s -c -o 1.o
arm-none-eabi-objdump -dr 1.o | grep bar
arm-none-eabi-gcc -march=armv7-a 2.s -o 1.u
arm-none-eabi-objdump -dr 1.u
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 Christian Bruel changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #7843|0 |1 is obsolete|| Attachment #7867|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Comment #9 from Christian Bruel --- Created attachment 7903 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7903&action=edit complete runable assembly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 --- Comment #10 from Christian Bruel --- in the .o dump bar is at .text : ... 0018 : but the call to bar resolves: 4:eb04 bl30 4: R_ARM_CALLbar why the +0x18 addend ? it shoud be either bl or just (prefered) bl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 Christian Bruel changed: What|Removed |Added Component|ld |gas -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/17505] arm: bad static label resolution from different modes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17505 Christian Bruel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #11 from Christian Bruel --- gcc 6.0.0 fixed to resolve interwork static thumb2 calls, so the linker fixup is not needed anymore. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/11542] ld -r generates R_X86_64_NONE
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11542 --- Comment #4 from Christian Bruel 2011-05-11 10:50:54 UTC --- Created attachment 5715 --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5715 part-1 -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/11542] ld -r generates R_X86_64_NONE
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11542 --- Comment #5 from Christian Bruel 2011-05-11 10:52:35 UTC --- Created attachment 5716 --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5716 part-2 Reproduce with: g++ -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -c -o foo.o foo.i g++ -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions -c -o bar.o bar.i ld -r -o foor.o foo.o bar.o objdump -r foor.o | grep NONE 0098 R_X86_64_NONE *ABS* -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/11542] ld -r generates R_X86_64_NONE
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11542 Christian Bruel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 from Christian Bruel 2011-05-11 10:58:20 UTC --- A new reduced case showing R_*_NONE relocation in .eh_frame for a relocatable module. Might not be a bug (R_*NONE should be allowed in the final ELF, but since this has not been covered by the patch in #2, I wonder if there is a solution to cleanup this one as well. -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
