[Bug ld/12030] assertion fail linker.c:2678

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12030

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug gas/12166] Assertion failure in coff_frob_symbol

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12166

--- Comment #4 from Dave Korn  2010-10-29 12:29:33 
UTC ---
Created attachment 5100
  --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5100
Avoid truncation.

Assuming that the frob_symbol hook can't be called twice on the same symbol,
which it looks like to me, then weak_altname2name is just being paranoid in
thinking that the symbol might have already been uniquified, and weak_uniquify
itself doesn't need to take any care to avoid re-uniquifying a name.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug gas/12166] Assertion failure in coff_frob_symbol

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12166

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org
 AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot   |davek at gcc dot gnu.org
   |redhat.com  |

--- Comment #5 from Dave Korn  2010-10-29 12:44:38 
UTC ---
Mikhail, I guess that you ran into this problem while you were building a
larger project of some sort?  Could you test the suggested patch on top of
current CVS and verify that it gets you to the end of your build without any
odd side-effects showing up?

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug gas/12166] Assertion failure in coff_frob_symbol

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12166

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #7 from Dave Korn  2010-10-30 16:59:54 
UTC ---
I'm just going to run a gcc bootstrap-and-test cycle using binutils built with
this patch and make sure nothing bad shows up before I check it in.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug gas/12166] Assertion failure in coff_frob_symbol

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12166

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED

--- Comment #8 from Dave Korn  2010-11-05 05:01:19 
UTC ---
Committed.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12248] BFD linker plugin failed to resolve reference to archive

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12248

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Dave Korn  2010-11-20 20:15:36 
UTC ---
This is GCC PR42690, for which I have a patch that's just completed testing.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12246] BFD linker plugin generates incorrect alignments for common symbols

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12246

--- Comment #6 from Dave Korn  2010-11-20 20:18:22 
UTC ---
Thank you.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12248] BFD linker plugin failed to resolve reference to archive

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12248

--- Comment #4 from Dave Korn  2010-11-20 20:48:18 
UTC ---
Created attachment 5132
  --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5132
build results with static linking vs gold

Even GOLD fails when static linking is in use, as in this LTO-bootstrap run of
GCC configured with "--disable-shared --enable-shared=lto-plugin
--with-plugin-ld=gold --enable-gold".

I am not yet sure what it is exactly that GOLD does differently internally that
makes it pick up dynamic library references.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12365] undefined references produced by linker plugin are silently ignored

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12365

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12369] Symbols present in LTO symbol table resolved as PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY and optimized out appears in final symbol table.

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12369

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12402] ld --disable-plugins configure options doesn't work

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12402

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution||INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Dave Korn  2011-02-01 03:56:13 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I was unable to disable ld plugin support on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu.

  The --enable/--disable-plugins option is part of binutils/configure and
decides only whether nm and ar have plugin support.  There is no way to disable
ld plugin support (plugins.m4 is not even included by ld/configure.in; the code
you quoted is more of a replacement than an override).

  This is by design - or to be precise, by review; I originally submitted a
patch that did have configure-time control over whether the plugin interface
was supported, but during the code review on the mailing list, I was persuaded
to make it unconditional.  (I can't remember exactly why we decided that, but
it's all there in the archives.) 

> GCC lto/plugin support is currently broken on this target.

  Is there else anything apart from GCC PR47274, which I'm looking at?

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12402] ld --disable-plugins configure options doesn't work

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12402

--- Comment #3 from Dave Korn  2011-02-01 07:03:21 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > > GCC lto/plugin support is currently broken on this target.
> > 
> >   Is there else anything apart from GCC PR47274, which I'm looking at?
> 
> There's about three hundred GCC lto/plugin fails.  There's a couple
> of PRs.

Can you quote the PR numbers please?  I couldn't figure out which ones you
meant from a quick bit of searching.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12455] Undefined reference error with ld.dk

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12455

--- Comment #2 from Dave Korn  2011-02-01 17:46:30 
UTC ---
I just took a closer read of the subject line... guess you are getting a
different error than me.  Don't know why you're not getting this, like I do:

$ make
gcc-4 -flto -o prog main.o foobar.o
lto1: internal compiler error: compressed stream: data error
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See  for instructions.
lto-wrapper: gcc-4 returned 1 exit status
/usr/bin/ld: lto-wrapper failed
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make: *** [prog] Error 1


... but it could be a matter of luck to do with the size of the lto sections. 
Anyway I have to work on this problem next as I'm also getting it for your
testcase in PR12430.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12439] Undefined reference error with ld.hjl

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12439

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Dave Korn  2011-02-01 18:03:44 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> With ld.dk (ld.bfd with patch
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-02/msg3.html>):
> 
> $ nm prog
> [...]
> 080483a2 T bar
> 0804838e t bar.1988
> [...]
> 
> `bar' is not needed.

Yes, although note that it's just a symbol, not the actual function, and the
program is correct.  There are left-over stray symbols from the LTO symtabs in
the final exe, when ltrans decides to remove a function that was present in the
IR object file.  I'll see if I can find a way to remove them, but as far as I
know, the only potential harm they can do is that if they have non-default
visibility, we get PR12277.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12455] Undefined reference error with ld.dk

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12455

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Dave Korn  2011-02-01 17:34:32 
UTC ---
  This is the same failure as the LTO 10 testcase from HJ's patch that he
posted the other day(*).  I've analysed the cause: the linker fails to respect
the 1-byte alignment of the LTO sections when doing the -r link, so the output
sections come out 4-aligned; e.g., from your testcase:

$ objdump -h foo.o

foo.o: file format pe-i386

Sections:
Idx Name  Size  VMA   LMA   File off  Algn
  0 .text 0010      01f4  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READONLY, CODE
  1 .data         2**2
  ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
  2 .bss          2**2
  ALLOC
  3 .gnu.lto_foo.d4648082 00aa      0204  2**0
  correct
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  4 .gnu.lto_.cgraph.d4648082 0037      02ae  2**0
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  5 .gnu.lto_.vars.d4648082 0012      02e5  2**0
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  6 .gnu.lto_.refs.d4648082 0012      02f7  2**0
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  7 .gnu.lto_.statics.d4648082 0014      0309  2**0
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  8 .gnu.lto_.decls.d4648082 0108      031d  2**0
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  9 .gnu.lto_.symtab.d4648082 0028      0425  2**0
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
 10 .gnu.lto_.opts 0035      044d  2**0
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
 11 .eh_frame 0038      0482  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READONLY, DATA

DKAdmin@ubik /gnu/binutils/git.repo/tests/pr12455
$ objdump -h bar.o

bar.o: file format pe-i386

Sections:
Idx Name  Size  VMA   LMA   File off  Algn
  0 .text 000c      00b4  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, CODE
  1 .data         2**2
  ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
  2 .bss          2**2
  ALLOC
  3 .eh_frame 0038      00c0  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READONLY, DATA

DKAdmin@ubik /gnu/binutils/git.repo/tests/pr12455
$ objdump -h foobar.o

foobar.o: file format pe-i386

Sections:
Idx Name  Size  VMA   LMA   File off  Algn
  0 .text 001c      01f4  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READONLY, CODE
  1 .data         2**2
  ALLOC, LOAD, DATA
  2 .gnu.lto_foo.d4648082 00ac      0210  2**2
  wrong!
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  3 .gnu.lto_.cgraph.d4648082 0038      02bc  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  4 .gnu.lto_.vars.d4648082 0014      02f4  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  5 .gnu.lto_.refs.d4648082 0014      0308  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  6 .gnu.lto_.statics.d4648082 0014      031c  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  7 .gnu.lto_.decls.d4648082 0108      0330  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  8 .gnu.lto_.symtab.d4648082 0028      0438  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
  9 .gnu.lto_.opts 0038      0460  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, DATA
 10 .eh_frame 0070      0498  2**2
  CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, RELOC, READONLY, DATA
 11 .bss          2**2
  ALLOC

  Increasing the alignment causes the size of the sections also to be rounded
up, leaving a few bytes of stray data at the end that confuse the zlib unpacker
in the lto input streamer.  This looks like an assumption somewhere in bfd
about the minimum valid section alignment; I'll work on it next.

-- 
(*) - http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-0

[Bug gold/12305] undefined reference to '__udivdi3' with -flto -fuse-linker-plugin

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12305

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12562] Ld.dk fails with "could not read symbols: Bad value" message

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12562

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davek at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Dave Korn  2011-03-10 11:35:34 
UTC ---
make: *** No rule to make target `libxxx.a(toupper.o)', needed by `libxxx.a'. 
S
top.

Hmm, what version of make are you using?

Also, are you testing CVS HEAD from before or after the five patches I
committed a couple of hours ago?

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12562] Ld.dk fails with "could not read symbols: Bad value" message

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12562

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|dave.korn.cygwin at gmail   |
   |dot com |

--- Comment #2 from Dave Korn  2011-03-10 11:39:18 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> make: *** No rule to make target `libxxx.a(toupper.o)', needed by `libxxx.a'. 
> Stop.
> 
> Hmm, what version of make are you using?

Disregard that, was caused by a typo when invoking 'patch' to unpack the
testcase!

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12246] BFD linker plugin generates incorrect alignments for common symbols

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12246

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com

--- Comment #7 from Dave Korn  2011-03-10 16:26:06 
UTC ---
*** Bug 12564 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12564] GNU ld internal ironly section should not be leaking warnings

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12564

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||DUPLICATE

--- Comment #2 from Dave Korn  2011-03-10 16:26:06 
UTC ---
Fixed on HEAD by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-11/msg00371.html

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 12246 ***

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12564] GNU ld internal ironly section should not be leaking warnings

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12564

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
 Resolution|DUPLICATE   |
 AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot   |davek at gcc dot gnu.org
   |redhat.com  |

--- Comment #3 from Dave Korn  2011-03-10 16:28:32 
UTC ---
Sorry, missed that this was for the 2.21 branch; this, and most other
plugin-related bugs are still there.  Current plan is to do a big backport and
release a 2.21.1 in approximate synchrony with gcc 4.6

Taking assignment so I remember to include this when I do the backport.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12562] Ld.dk fails with "could not read symbols: Bad value" message

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12562

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot   |davek at gcc dot gnu.org
   |redhat.com  |

--- Comment #4 from Dave Korn  2011-03-12 03:05:03 
UTC ---
Created attachment 5298
  --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5298
Fix typo in 003ld-plugin-api-link-order.diff

There was a typo in 003ld-plugin-api-link-order.diff, at the point where it has
to open the new files that were added by the plugin through the add_input_file
callback; it starts at the wrong point in the chain of input files, reopening
the existing ones before it reaches the newly-added files.  Reopening the
object files is ignored, but reopening the libraries causes them to be
rescanned, and since toupper still isn't defined at this point - the ltrans.o
file not having been opened yet - when we reopen libxxx we pull in toupper.o
again (it already having been pulled in, then claimed by the plugin, first time
round).  The backend complains about the same library module being supposedly
pulled in twice.

Solved by starting the reopen at the correct point, i.e. the old tail of the
list, which is where the new input files will have been added.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12562] Ld.dk fails with "could not read symbols: Bad value" message

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12562

Dave Korn  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Attachment #5298|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #5 from Dave Korn  2011-03-12 05:35:42 
UTC ---
Comment on attachment 5298
  --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5298
Fix typo in 003ld-plugin-api-link-order.diff

patch is buggy.  will spin a new one tomorrow.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12562] Ld.dk fails with "could not read symbols: Bad value" message

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12562

--- Comment #6 from Dave Korn  2011-03-12 05:58:59 
UTC ---
Created attachment 5299
  --> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5299
Fixed respin.

Moved all the chain manipulation inside the if-new-files-added test.  Appears
to work properly this time.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12562] Ld.dk fails with "could not read symbols: Bad value" message

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12562

--- Comment #7 from Dave Korn  2011-03-12 06:00:55 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created attachment 5299 [details]
> Fixed respin.
> 
> Moved all the chain manipulation inside the if-new-files-added test.  Appears
> to work properly this time.

I have inadvertently mixed code and variable declarations c99 style there; I'll
refactor that before I send it to the mailing list but it should still be good
for testing.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12562] Ld.dk fails with "could not read symbols: Bad value" message

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12562

--- Comment #9 from Dave Korn  2011-03-12 16:21:34 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Created attachment 5302 [details]
> Testcase #2
> 
> (Is it ok to post here, or should I file another bug report for it?)

Can you check whether that works with GOLD?  If GOLD also fails (though perhaps
in a different way - maybe a redefinition error for bar) then I think the first
thing would be to post this testcase to the binutils list and try and figure
out what is *supposed* to happen.  That foo symbol is invisible to LTO, we
might just decide that it's not valid code.  If you replace the asm by

void foo (void) __attribute__ ((alias("bar"))) ;

it all works fine, as we would hope.

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

[Bug ld/12562] Ld.dk fails with "could not read symbols: Bad value" message

[davek at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12562

--- Comment #11 from Dave Korn  2011-03-12 17:49:21 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Both ld.gold and ld.hjl print warnings "cannot find entry symbol 'foo'". Still
> better then obscure "libfoobar.a: could not read symbols: Bad value" error.

Right.  I figure I can make ld.bfd do at least that much.  What it needs to be
able to do is open a library, pull in an archive member, have it claimed by the
plugin, then when the plugin has added ltrans objects and a symbol still isn't
satisfied it needs to be allowed to pull the same member in again, this time
getting only the native object.  Just need to find the right place to clear the
archive_pass flag on archive members that the plugin claims.

There are two separate bugs here; the first is that ld.bfd was reopening the
file chain at the wrong point, and this exposed the second: that we don't
support pulling in the native version of an archive member if its symbols are
still required after the plugin claimed it first time round.  But I can't see
much use in opening a second bug just for the sake of the paperwork, let's just
call it a bug with two parts :)

-- 
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
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils