[Bug binutils/4453] ar doesn't recognize ELF64 on mips
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-18 17:22 --- Can you try the current CVS? -- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4453 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5670] linker is broken
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-25 17:35 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-01/msg00278.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5670 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5670] New: linker is broken
This patch: http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-01/msg00272.html breaks linker. On Linux/Intel64 with gcc 4.1, I got cc1: warnings being treated as errors /export/gnu/src/binutils/binutils/ld/ldlang.c: In function ‘process_insert_statements’: /export/gnu/src/binutils/binutils/ld/ldlang.c:3398: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules /export/gnu/src/binutils/binutils/ld/ldlang.c:3405: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules make[4]: *** [ldlang.o] Error 1 -- Summary: linker is broken Product: binutils Version: 2.19 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P2 Component: ld AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com CC: amodra at bigpond dot net dot au,bug-binutils at gnu dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5670 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5534] "XXX PTR" isn't checked properly in Intel syntax
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-27 22:19 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-01/msg00148.html http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-01/msg00179.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5534 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5715] New: Binutils is broken on 32bit mingw host for 64bit target
This patch:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-01/msg00195.html
breaks 32bit mingw host for 64bit target. It has
#elif BFD_HOST_64BIT_LONG_LONG
+#ifndef _WIN32
#define sprintf_vma(s,x) sprintf (s, "%016llx", x)
#define fprintf_vma(f,x) fprintf (f, "%016llx", x)
#else
+#define sprintf_vma(s,x) sprintf (s, "%016I64x", x)
+#define fprintf_vma(f,x) fprintf (f, "%016I64x", x)
+#endif
You can't use BFD_HOST_64BIT_LONG_LONG to check for win32 vs. win64.
--
Summary: Binutils is broken on 32bit mingw host for 64bit target
Product: binutils
Version: 2.19 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
Component: gas
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
CC: Kai dot Tietz at onevision dot com,bug-binutils at gnu
dot org
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5715
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5715] Binutils is broken on 32bit mingw host for 64bit target
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-02 16:24 --- Created an attachment (id=2228) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2228&action=view) A patch My gcc 4.1 cross compiler for 32bit mingw doesn't understand %I64. This patch allows me to build binutils hosted on 32bit mingw for 64bit target. If %ll was never supported on 32bit mingw, mingw should use things like #define _bfd_int64_low(x) ((unsigned long) (((x) & 0x))) #define _bfd_int64_high(x) ((unsigned long) (((x) >> 32) & 0x)) #define fprintf_vma(s,x) \ fprintf ((s), "%08lx%08lx", _bfd_int64_high (x), _bfd_int64_low (x)) #define sprintf_vma(s,x) \ sprintf ((s), "%08lx%08lx", _bfd_int64_high (x), _bfd_int64_low (x)) to print out 64bit value. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5715 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5715] Binutils is broken on 32bit mingw host for 64bit target
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-04 20:36 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-02/msg00037.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5715 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/5713] strings: use '-0' as option will meet infinite loop
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-08 20:59 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-02/msg00067.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5713 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/5606] recognition for x86_64-pc-solaris2.10 target
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-08 20:59 --- Fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED Version|2.18|2.19 (HEAD) http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5606 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5303] splay-tree doesn't support 64bit value on 32bit host
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-09 16:22 --- A patch is posted at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-02/msg00068.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5303 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5767] /usr/bin/ld: BFD (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.18.50.0.4.20080208 internal error, aborting at ../../binutils-2.18.50.0.4/bfd/arange-set.c line 202 in arange_set_new
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-17 15:10 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5755 *** -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5767 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5303] splay-tree doesn't support 64bit value on 32bit host
-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||5755 nThis|| http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5303 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5755] binutils-2.18.50.0.4 ld fails to link while building older cross binutils
-- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||5303 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5755 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5755] binutils-2.18.50.0.4 ld fails to link while building older cross binutils
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-17 15:10 --- *** Bug 5767 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added CC||amnon at paldo dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5755 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5543] Assembler crashes on .set
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-20 23:39 --- A patch is posted at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-02/msg00199.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5543 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5788] New: Linker memory corruption
This patch
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-02/msg6.html
causes a serious memory corruption in linker. There are 2 problems in
elf_create_symbuf:
ssymbuf = bfd_malloc ((shndx_count + 1) * sizeof (*ssymbuf)
+ (indbufend - indbuf) * sizeof (*ssymbuf));
if (ssymbuf == NULL)
{
free (indbuf);
return NULL;
}
ssym = (struct elf_symbuf_symbol *) (ssymbuf + shndx_count);
ssymbuf->ssym = NULL;
ssymbuf->count = shndx_count;
ssymbuf->st_shndx = 0;
1. Only one combined buffer is allocated for both ssymbuf and ssym.
But it is wrong to assume that size of ssym is the same as ssymbuf.
2. There are shndx_count + 1 entries in ssymbuf. ssym should
start at ssymbuf + shndx_count + 1, not ssymbuf + shndx_count
since the first entry is for shndx_count.
--
Summary: Linker memory corruption
Product: binutils
Version: 2.19 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: critical
Priority: P1
Component: ld
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org,jakub at redhat dot com
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5788
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5788] Linker memory corruption
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-22 23:58 --- A patch is posted at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-02/msg00228.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5788 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5788] Linker memory corruption
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-23 00:03 --- Fixed. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5788 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5788] Linker memory corruption
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-23 00:03 --- Yes, fixed. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5788 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5789] New: Linker doesn't check weak and hidden symbols
bash-3.2$ cat x.c
extern void foo() __attribute__((weak,visibility("hidden")));
extern int puts( char const* );
int main()
{
foo ? foo() : puts( "foo == null, skipped." );
return 0;
}
bash-3.2$ /usr/gcc-4.4/bin/gcc -B./ -fPIC -g -c -o x.o x.c
bash-3.2$ ./ld -shared -o libx.so x.o
./ld: x.o: relocation R_X86_64_PC32 against `foo' can not be used when making a
shared object; recompile with -fPIC
./ld: final link failed: Bad value
bash-3.2$ /usr/gcc-4.4/bin/gcc -B./ -fPIC -g -c -o x.o x.c -m32
bash-3.2$ ld -m elf_i386 -shared -o libx.so x.o
bash-3.2$
Linker should issue clear error message for both cases.
--
Summary: Linker doesn't check weak and hidden symbols
Product: binutils
Version: 2.19 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5789
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5789] Linker doesn't check weak and hidden symbols
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-24 00:12 --- Gcc bug is http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219 A patch is posted at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-02/msg00239.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5789 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5543] Assembler crashes on .set
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-03 15:57 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-03/msg00015.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5543 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5866] LD Does not Set GP Size of Archive Modules
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-04 23:51 --- How can I reproduce it on Linux/x86-64? What target should I use? Linker manual says: `-GVALUE' `--gpsize=VALUE' Set the maximum size of objects to be optimized using the GP register to SIZE. This is only meaningful for object file formats such as MIPS ECOFF which supports putting large and small objects into different sections. This is ignored for other object file formats. Does it do anything for any ELF targets? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5866 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5871] pushsection/popsection doesn't work on Itanium
-- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5871 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5871] pushsection/popsection doesn't work on Itanium
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-05
00:02 ---
It works for me:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ gcc -c x.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ readelf -S x.o
There are 14 section headers, starting at offset 0x2f0:
Section Headers:
[Nr] Name Type Address Offset
Size EntSize Flags Link Info Align
[ 0] NULL
0 0 0
[ 1] .text PROGBITS 0040
0180 AX 0 0 16
[ 2] .rela.textRELA 07c0
0030 0018 12 1 8
[ 3] .data PROGBITS 01c0
WA 0 0 1
[ 4] .bss NOBITS 01c0
WA 0 0 1
[ 5] .IA_64.unwind_inf PROGBITS 01c0
0038 A 0 0 8
[ 6] .IA_64.unwind IA_64_UNWIND 01f8
0048 AL 1 1 8
[ 7] .rela.IA_64.unwin RELA 07f0
00d8 0018 12 6 8
[ 8] .parasections PROGBITS 0240
0 0 1
However, .parasections doesn't have any bits in flags. If I add
asm (".section .parasections, \"ax\", @progbits");
I got
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ gcc -c x.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ objdump -d x.o
...
Disassembly of section .parasections:
<.parasections>:
0: 01 20 01 48 00 21 [MII] mov r36=r36
6: 00 00 00 02 00 00 nop.i 0x0
c: 00 00 04 00 nop.i 0x0;;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5871
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5866] LD Does not Set GP Size of Archive Modules
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-05 01:07 --- (In reply to comment #5) > Unfortunately, x86 doesn't have a GP register proper. MIPS and PPC and > possibly > IPF do though. > What is the expect result on MIPS/PPC/IPF? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5866 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/5896] inconsistent behavior of bash re time
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-07 03:57 --- This has nothing to do with binutils. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5896 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5866] LD Does not Set GP Size of Archive Modules
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-07 04:11 --- (In reply to comment #3) > Instructions to reproduce this issue: > > as d.s -o d.o > as e.s -o e.o > ar r e.a e.o > > The command below results in both "e4" and "ef" to be placed in .bss: > > ld d.o e.a > > Whereas the command below correctly places "e4" in .sbss: > > ld d.o e.o > Your testcase is incorrect on ia64-linux, ppc-linux and mips-linux. I either got assembler error and linker error. Do you have a testcase for a supported binutils target? -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5866 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5866] LD Does not Set GP Size of Archive Modules
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-07 04:17 --- It works for me after a small change: bash-3.2$ cat d.s .extern e4, ef .comm d4, 4 .comm df, 15 .data .long e4 .long ef bash-3.2$ cat e.s .comm e4, 4 .comm ef, 15 bash-3.2$ make ./as -o e.o e.s ./as -o d.o d.s ./ld -G 16 -o good d.o e.o ./ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 1054 ./ar -r e.a e.o ./ld -G 16 -o bad d.o e.a ./ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 1054 cmp good bad bash-3.2$ ./ld -V GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.18.50.20080306 Supported emulations: elf32ppclinux elf32ppc elf32ppcsim bash-3.2$ -- What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||WORKSFORME http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5866 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5866] LD Does not Set GP Size of Archive Modules
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-07 06:00 --- (In reply to comment #10) > Well, yes, the link is succesfull, but the problem is where common symbols in > archived modules end up. > > Please, rerun ld with -G 8 and then run objdump on the output files and > confirm > that e4 is in .sbss and ef in .bss. > Still works for me: bash-3.2$ make ./as -o e.o e.s ./as -o d.o d.s ./ld -G 8 -o good d.o e.o ./ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 1054 ./ar -r e.a e.o ./ld -G 8 -o bad d.o e.a ./ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol _start; defaulting to 1054 cmp good bad bash-3.2$ -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5866 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5866] LD Does not Set GP Size of Archive Modules
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-07 16:53 --- (In reply to comment #12) > Could you please e-mail me "good" and "bad"? I wonder if PPC is similar to > MIPS > in using small data sections. "good" and "bad" are identical: bash-3.2$ readelf -Ss good There are 7 section headers, starting at offset 0x88: Section Headers: [Nr] Name TypeAddr OffSize ES Flg Lk Inf Al [ 0] NULL 00 00 00 0 0 0 [ 1] .data PROGBITS10010054 54 08 00 WA 0 0 1 [ 2] .sbss NOBITS 1001005c 5c 08 00 WA 0 0 4 [ 3] .bss NOBITS 10010068 5c 20 00 WA 0 0 8 [ 4] .shstrtab STRTAB 5c 2c 00 0 0 1 [ 5] .symtab SYMTAB 0001a0 b0 10 6 4 4 [ 6] .strtab STRTAB 000250 25 00 0 0 1 Key to Flags: W (write), A (alloc), X (execute), M (merge), S (strings) I (info), L (link order), G (group), x (unknown) O (extra OS processing required) o (OS specific), p (processor specific) Symbol table '.symtab' contains 11 entries: Num:Value Size TypeBind Vis Ndx Name 0: 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND 1: 10010054 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT1 2: 1001005c 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT2 3: 10010068 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT3 4: 1001007815 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT3 ef 5: 1001006815 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT3 df 6: 10010060 4 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT2 e4 7: 1001005c 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS __bss_start 8: 1001005c 4 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT2 d4 9: 1001005c 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS _edata 10: 10010088 0 NOTYPE GLOBAL DEFAULT ABS _end bash-3.2$ ef is in .bss since its size, 15, > 8. e4 is in .sbss since its size, 4, <= 8. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5866 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-08 23:40 --- >From gABI: sh_size Unspecified If non-zero, the actual number of section header entries sh_link Unspecified If non-zero, the index of the section header string table section sh_link has a section index, which can be > number of sections. Consider bash-3.2$ cat y.c int conststaticvariable; bash-3.2$ gcc -c y.c -m32 bash-3.2$ readelf -Ss y.o There are 9 section headers, starting at offset 0xa8: Section Headers: [Nr] Name TypeAddr OffSize ES Flg Lk Inf Al [ 0] NULL 00 00 00 0 0 0 [ 1] .text PROGBITS 34 00 00 AX 0 0 4 [ 2] .data PROGBITS 34 00 00 WA 0 0 4 [ 3] .bss NOBITS 34 00 00 WA 0 0 4 [ 4] .comment PROGBITS 34 2e 00 0 0 1 [ 5] .note.GNU-stack PROGBITS 62 00 00 0 0 1 [ 6] .shstrtab STRTAB 62 45 00 0 0 1 [ 7] .symtab SYMTAB 000210 80 10 8 7 4 [ 8] .strtab STRTAB 000290 19 00 0 0 1 Key to Flags: W (write), A (alloc), X (execute), M (merge), S (strings) I (info), L (link order), G (group), x (unknown) O (extra OS processing required) o (OS specific), p (processor specific) Symbol table '.symtab' contains 8 entries: Num:Value Size TypeBind Vis Ndx Name 0: 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND 1: 0 FILELOCAL DEFAULT ABS y.c 2: 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT1 3: 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT2 4: 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT3 5: 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT5 6: 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT4 7: 0004 4 OBJECT GLOBAL DEFAULT COM conststaticvariable bash-3.2$ y.o only have 9 sections. However, the section index of conststaticvariable is 0xfff2, which is > 9. That is because the section indexes from 0xfff2 to 0xfff2 don't have entries in section header table. st_shndx is section index, which isn't the same as the index of the section header table. -- What|Removed |Added CC| |hjl dot tools at gmail dot | |com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-10 02:24 --- (In reply to comment #2) > You seem to be trying to say that section indexes between SHN_LORESERVE and > SHN_HIRESERVE are not to be used. However, there is no support for that in > the > ELF spec. And it is not required to make everything work. I said quite opposite. See comment #1. Section index 0xfff2 is between SHN_LORESERVE and SHN_HIRESERVE. Here "section index" may not be the index into section header table. > > Also, providing an example with st_shndx proves little, since I was making a > point about the sh_link section in section number zero. The ELF spec does not > say "add 256 to section indexes." It just says to use the section index. > > What does icc produce with the sample source code? There are 70005 section headers, starting at offset 0x484bdc: Section Headers: [Nr] Name TypeAddr OffSize ES Flg Lk Inf Al [ 0] NULL 00 011175 00 0 0 0 [ 1] .strtab STRTAB 34 194bef 00 0 0 1 -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-10 03:43 --- (In reply to comment #4) > I think you need to qualify what you say. It is clearly true that the > st_shndx > field of a symbol is not a pure section index. Any value above LORESERVE is > indeed reserved. The ELF ABI defines what to do for a symbol whose section > index is larger than LORESERVE: put SHN_XINDEX in the st_shndx field, and put > the real section index in the corresponding entry in the SHT_SYMTAB_SHNDX > section. Note that the ABI does not say to store the section index plus 256; > it > says to store the section index. > > None of this has anything to do with the sh_link field in section header 0 > when > the section string table is larger than LORESERVE. In that case, I think the > ELF ABI says to put the section index in the sh_link field. It does not say > to > put the section index plus 256. Currently BFD is putting the section index > plus > 256. I think that is wrong. I think it is up for debate. I can see the point for the current BFD behavior. That is each section index is unique, including special ones. When I say section index 0xfff2, there is no ambiguity about which section it refers to. Would you mind raising your concern at http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi > For the original test case, for a symbol defined in a section whose index is > larger than LORESERVE, what does icc put in the SHT_SYMTAB_SHNDX section? > Does > it put the section index, or the section index plus 256? I believe that the > ELF > ABI says that it should store the former. BFD stores the latter. What does > the > BFD readelf -s report for those symbols in the object compiled by icc? Would you mind downloading icc to check it out? I believe icc is free for non-commercial use. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5905] 'version node not found for symbol ...' during linking against libc_pic.a
-- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5905 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-10 18:09 --- gABI says: sh_link Unspecified If non-zero, the index of the section header string table section So sh_link isn't "section index", it is the section header index. What else did binutils get wrong? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-10 18:28 --- (In reply to comment #8) > gABI says: > > sh_link Unspecified If non-zero, the index of the section header string table > section > > So sh_link isn't "section index", it is the section header index. What > else did binutils get wrong? Wait a second, the index of the section header string table section is a "section index". -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-10 19:14 --- gABI says: Some section header table indexes are reserved in contexts where index size is restricted, for example, the st_shndx member of a symbol table entry and the e_shnum and e_shstrndx members of the ELF header. In such contexts, the reserved values do not represent actual sections in the object file. Also in such contexts, an escape value indicates that the actual section index is to be found elsewhere, in a larger field. That means we can't use from SHN_UNDEF and SHN_LORESERVE to SHN_HIRESERVE anywhere else. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-10 20:43 --- (In reply to comment #12) > > That means we can't use from SHN_UNDEF and SHN_LORESERVE to SHN_HIRESERVE > > anywhere else. > > No, it doesn't. It only means that you can't use them in contexts "where > index > size is restricted." > It isn't clear to me if those special values have special means where the index size isn't restricted. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-11 19:09 --- (In reply to comment #15) > I am to blame, and can't find anything to defend the current binutils > behaviour. > i.e. I agree with Ian that this is a bug. Alan, we need to update the whole ELF backend for all ELF targets. Are you work on that? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-11
19:14 ---
I think we can add a st_xshndx field to internal ELF symbol entry:
---
--- ./internal.h.64k2007-11-28 23:35:52.0 -0800
+++ ./internal.h2008-03-11 12:14:06.0 -0700
@@ -100,7 +100,8 @@ struct elf_internal_sym {
unsigned longst_name;/* Symbol name, index in string
tbl */
unsigned charst_info;/* Type and binding attributes
*/
unsigned charst_other; /* Visibilty, and target
specific */
- unsigned int st_shndx; /* Associated section index */
+ unsigned short st_shndx; /* Associated section index */
+ unsigned int st_xshndx; /* Extended section index */
};
typedef struct elf_internal_sym Elf_Internal_Sym;
---
to tell if st_shndx is a special value or not.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
-- What|Removed |Added CC||amodra at bigpond dot net ||dot au Version|2.16|2.19 (HEAD) http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5913] New: IA64 linker crashes on supported relocations
A64 linker crashes on supported relocations. -- Summary: IA64 linker crashes on supported relocations Product: binutils Version: 2.19 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ld AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org GCC target triplet: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5913 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5913] IA64 linker crashes on supported relocations
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-11 19:52 --- Created an attachment (id=2318) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2318&action=view) A testcase [EMAIL PROTECTED] 776]$ ld -shared test.o ld: BFD (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.18.50.0.5.20080303 assertion fail elf64-ia64.c:4205 Segmentation fault [EMAIL PROTECTED] 776]$ -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5913 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5913] IA64 linker crashes on unsupported relocations
-- What|Removed |Added Summary|IA64 linker crashes on |IA64 linker crashes on |supported relocations |unsupported relocations http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5913 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-11 21:31 --- (In reply to comment #18) > Yes, I'll work on it. My approach will be to redefine SHN_LORESERVE thru > SHN_HIRESERVE to FF00 thru , sign extending the existing values to > an unsigned int. All internal BFD uses of section indices will use these > values, > so the reserved range is mapped out of the way of "real" section numbers. We > won't need any of the code that adds SHN_HIRESERVE + 1 - SHN_LORESERVE to skip > over the reserved range. Also, I think most backend use of SHN_* will not > need > changing. That should work. I doubt we will have 0xFF00 sections. It will nice to assert it just in case. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5905] 'version node not found for symbol ...' during linking against libc_pic.a
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-11 22:25 --- libc_pic.a from glibc build directory should only be used to build libc.so. Any other uses are invalid. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5905 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5913] IA64 linker crashes on unsupported relocations
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-14 16:54 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-03/msg00086.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5913 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5943] New: Linker crash on undefined symbols
On Linux/Intel64, "make check" in ld leads to linker on undefined symbols:
gcc -B/export/build/gnu/binutils/build-x86_64-linux/ld/tmpdir/ld/
-L/usr/local/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib64 -L/usr/local/lib64 -L/lib64
-L/usr/lib64 -L/usr/local/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib -L/usr/local/lib -L/lib
-L/usr/lib -o tmpdir/vp.so -shared tmpdir/sh1p.o tmpdir/sh2p.o
Executing on host: sh -c {gcc
-B/export/build/gnu/binutils/build-x86_64-linux/ld/tmpdir/ld/
-L/usr/local/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib64 -L/usr/local/lib64 -L/lib64
-L/usr/lib64 -L/usr/local/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib -L/usr/local/lib -L/lib
-L/usr/lib -o tmpdir/vp.so -shared tmpdir/sh1p.o tmpdir/sh2p.o 2>&1}
/dev/null ld.tmp (timeout = 300)
collect2: ld terminated with signal 11 [Segmentation fault]
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0043c2e9 in elf64_x86_64_finish_dynamic_symbol (output_bfd=0x74c310,
info=0x7375a0, h=0x74ec00, sym=0x7fff77001d10)
at /export/linux/src/binutils/binutils/bfd/elf64-x86-64.c:3368
3368 rela.r_addend = (h->root.u.def.value
--
Summary: Linker crash on undefined symbols
Product: binutils
Version: 2.19 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: ld
AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com
ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5943
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5943] Linker crash on undefined symbols
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-24 13:36 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-03/msg00111.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5943 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/5900] ELF files with more than 65536 sections not handled correctly.
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-24 13:38 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-03/msg00070.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/5789] Linker doesn't check weak and hidden symbols
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-24 13:39 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-03/msg00111.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5789 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/6038] [gas patch] xtensa: fix compile failure with gcc 4.3
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-08 18:02 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-04/msg00069.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6038 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6412] New: New binutils is incompatible with old object files
Fix for PR 5900 makes binutils incompatible with old object files: # readelf -Sg foo.o readelf: Error: section [96278] in group section [4] > maximum section [96023] readelf: Error: section [96277] in group section [5] > maximum section [96023] readelf: Error: section [96276] in group section [7] > maximum section [96023] I think binutils should issue a warning and support the old object files. -- Summary: New binutils is incompatible with old object files Product: binutils Version: 2.19 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6412 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6412] New binutils is incompatible with old object files
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-16 12:55 --- (In reply to comment #3) > The number of object files is very large, but the number of object files with > more than 65,279 sections is very small. > For people who have them, it is a big problem. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6412 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6430] --sort-common Not Implemented Per Documentation
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-20 01:30 --- Can you add a testcase patch? -- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6412] New binutils is incompatible with old object files
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-21 21:15 --- A patch is posted at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-04/msg00348.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6412 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6430] --sort-common Not Implemented Per Documentation
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-21 21:20 --- Linker manual says `--sort-common' This option tells `ld' to sort the common symbols by size when it places them in the appropriate output sections. First come all the one byte symbols, then all the two byte, then all the four byte, and then everything else. This is to prevent gaps between symbols due to alignment constraints. To prevent gaps between common symbols with different alignments, shouldn't we sort common symbols by their sizes in descending order, assuming small sizes need small alignments? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6430] --sort-common Not Implemented Per Documentation
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-22 16:06 --- To prevent gaps between symbols due to alignment constraints, shouldn't we sort common symbols by their alignments? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6430] --sort-common Not Implemented Per Documentation
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-22 17:17 --- (In reply to comment #8) > As a matter of fact, the current implementation actually sorts by alignment. > > I like Nick's suggestion, only I prefer terser wording, such as "ascending" or > "descending". But that's me. In that case, we need to fix the typo in the linker manual first: `--sort-common' should be sorted by alignment, not by size. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6430 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6449] objdump -S and DOS-style line-endings
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-24 12:57 --- There are so many #ifndef O_BINARY #ifdef _O_BINARY #define O_BINARY _O_BINARY #define setmode _setmode #else #define O_BINARY 0 #endif #endif in binutils sources. It should go into sysdep.h. -- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6449 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6443] -pie issues with TLS relocations
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-24 13:00 --- Why does it limit to PIE? If a symbol in shared library is resolved locally, will we run into the same problem? -- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6443 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6443] -pie issues with TLS relocations
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-24 13:25 --- (In reply to comment #4) > The important thing is that executables and PIEs are always the first in the > symbol search scope, so the linker can compute the offsets within the TLS > block > at runtime. For shared libraries you can't do that, as you don't know how big > the executable or PIE's TLS block will be, what alignment will it need etc., > so for those you need a runtime relocation. > Can you add those comments in your patch? Also please add a testcase for each change. Your testcase only shows R_X86_64_TPOFF32 is affected. But your proposed change affects many other TLS relocations. Are they really necessary? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6443 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6443] -pie issues with TLS relocations
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-24
13:31 ---
Will this patch
--- elf64-x86-64.c.pie 2008-04-24 06:05:36.0 -0700
+++ elf64-x86-64.c 2008-04-24 06:29:08.0 -0700
@@ -1050,7 +1050,7 @@ elf64_x86_64_check_relocs (bfd *abfd, st
goto create_got;
case R_X86_64_TPOFF32:
- if (info->shared)
+ if (!info->executable)
{
(*_bfd_error_handler)
(_("%B: relocation %s against `%s' can not be used when making a
shared object; recompile with -fPIC"),
@@ -3211,7 +3211,7 @@ elf64_x86_64_relocate_section (bfd *outp
break;
case R_X86_64_TPOFF32:
- BFD_ASSERT (! info->shared);
+ BFD_ASSERT (info->executable);
relocation = tpoff (info, relocation);
break;
be enough for x86-64?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6443
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6443] -pie issues with TLS relocations
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-04-24 13:56 --- Subject: Re: -pie issues with TLS relocations On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:46 AM, jakub at redhat dot com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2008-04-24 13:46 > --- > That's certainly not enough, see the testcase I've provided. There are > various > relocations: > 0003 000b0016 R_X86_64_GOTTPOFF 0008 c > + > fffc > 000c 000c0017 R_X86_64_TPOFF32 a > + 0 > 0014 000d0017 R_X86_64_TPOFF32 0004 b > + 0 > 001e 000e0014 R_X86_64_TLSLD 000c d > + > fffc > 0023 000f0004 R_X86_64_PLT32 > __tls_get_addr + fffc > 0029 000e0015 R_X86_64_DTPOFF32 000c d > + 0 > 0031 00100013 R_X86_64_TLSGD 0010 e > + > fffc > 0039 000f0004 R_X86_64_PLT32 > __tls_get_addr + fffc > and all of them can and should be in a PIE transitioned to the fastest, > local-exec, ones, as all resolve to a symbol within the PIE. > Please add testcases to your patch to make sure that only necessary changes are included. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6443 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6475] New: rgn-over8 doesn't work
On Linux/Intel64, I got regexp_diff match failure regexp "^ 0 .text 0+400 0+000 0+000 [0-9a-f]+ 2\*\*0 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, CODE$" line " 0 .text 0400 0020 2**2 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, READONLY, CODE" regexp_diff match failure regexp "^ 1 .data 0+400 0+0001000 0+400 [0-9a-f]+ 2\*\*0 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA$" line " 1 .data 0400 1000 0400 00201000 2**2 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA" regexp_diff match failure regexp "^ 2 .bss 0+400 0+0001400 0+800 [0-9a-f]+ 2\*\*0 ALLOC$" line " 2 .bss 0400 1400 0800 00201400 2**2 ALLOC" FAIL: rgn-over8 Why does it expect 2**0 alignment? -- Summary: rgn-over8 doesn't work Product: binutils Version: 2.19 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ld AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6475 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6475] rgn-over8 doesn't work
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-02 15:12 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-05/msg00037.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6475 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6460] ld - bfd_emul_get_maxpagesize bug
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-02 15:16 --- It should be called for ELF target. Please provide a testcase. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6460 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6460] ld - bfd_emul_get_maxpagesize bug
-- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6460 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6468] ld: --export-dynamic fails if no undefined symbols
-- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6468 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/4918] ___tls_get_addr call requires @PLT for global-dynamic even without -fpic
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-04 14:43 --- *** Bug 6480 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added CC||edwintorok at gmail dot com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4918 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6480] tls-model global-dynamic w/o @PLT leading to binutils assertion failure
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-04 14:43 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 4918 *** -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6480 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6494] ICE in bfd/elf.c line 4622 in assign_file_positions_for_non_load_sections
-- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6494 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/6517] cvtsi2sd and cvtsi2ss with mem operand may fail to assemble
-- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6517 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/6517] cvtsi2sd and cvtsi2ss with mem operand may fail to assemble
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-22 20:53 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-05/msg00188.html -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6517 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/6518] wrong diagnostic for vcvtpd2dq/vcvtpd2ps/vcvttpd2dq
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-23 13:57 --- Fixed by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-05/msg00197.html -- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6518 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/6518] wrong diagnostic for movsx/movzx/vcvtpd2dq/vcvtpd2ps/vcvttpd2dq
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-05-27 00:03 --- As I indicated in this thread http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-01/msg00041.html before my memory size change, x86 assembler only checked ambiguous sizes while accepting invalid sizes. The whole suffix/size scheme doesn't work well for Intel syntax. The way how ambiguous size check works depends on unspecified operand size to be valid. However, if unspecified operand size is invalid, ambiguous size check won't work since match_template fails before check_prefix is called. For accurate memory size error message in Intel syntax, the assembler should be cleaned up not to abuse suffix and check operand size instead for Intel syntax. I think the infrastructure in the current assembler should provide enough information for this work. I consider it as enhancement and will look into it when I find time. -- What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6518 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6741] New: Linker is broken
As of Sat Jul 12 11:21:06 PDT 2008, linker is broken on Linux/x86-64: FAIL: bootstrap FAIL: bootstrap with strip FAIL: bootstrap with --static FAIL: bootstrap with --traditional-format FAIL: bootstrap with --no-keep-memory FAIL: bootstrap with --relax -- Summary: Linker is broken Product: binutils Version: 2.19 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P1 Component: ld AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6741 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6741] Linker is broken
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-12 18:25 --- On Fedora 9/x86-64, I got ../bfd/.libs/libbfd.a(compress.o): In function `bfd_uncompress_section_contents': /export/gnu/src/binutils/src/bfd/compress.c:96: undefined reference to `inflateInit_' /export/gnu/src/binutils/src/bfd/compress.c:103: undefined reference to `inflate' /export/gnu/src/binutils/src/bfd/compress.c:106: undefined reference to `inflateReset' /export/gnu/src/binutils/src/bfd/compress.c:108: undefined reference to `inflateEnd' ... FAIL: bootstrap Craig, could you please update ld testsuite? Thanks. -- What|Removed |Added CC||csilvers at google dot com Severity|critical|normal Priority|P1 |P3 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6741 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6741] Linker test is broken
-- What|Removed |Added GCC target triplet|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu| Summary|Linker is broken|Linker test is broken http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6741 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6715] ld fails with error cannot find -lc
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-12 18:43 --- Please try Linux binutils at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/ -- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6715 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6656] [regression] linking with -g results in assembler error
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-12 18:46 --- Alan is correct. You shouldn't use "gcc -g" on assembly code which already has debug info. -- What|Removed |Added CC| |hjl dot tools at gmail dot | |com Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6656 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6743] New: addr2line frees an invalid pointer
As of Sat Jul 12 08:46:21 PDT 2008, on Fedora 9/x86-64, I got bash-3.2$ ./addr2line -e addr2line 0x401f49 ??:0 *** glibc detected *** ./addr2line: munmap_chunk(): invalid pointer: 0x7f850706909c *** === Backtrace: = /lib64/libc.so.6[0x3362278158] ./addr2line[0x41f87a] ./addr2line[0x40a719] ./addr2line[0x4025d4] /lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xfa)[0x336221e32a] ./addr2line(calloc+0x149)[0x401f49] === Memory map: 0040-004c9000 r-xp 08:11 14418847 /export/build/gnu/binutils/build-x86_64-linux.old/binutils/addr2line 006c8000-006cb000 rw-p 000c8000 08:11 14418847 /export/build/gnu/binutils/build-x86_64-linux.old/binutils/addr2line 006cb000-006cf000 rw-p 006cb000 00:00 0 021c-0228e000 rw-p 021c 00:00 0 [heap] 336100-336101d000 r-xp 08:06 9297034 /lib64/ld-2.8.so 336121c000-336121d000 r--p 0001c000 08:06 9297034 /lib64/ld-2.8.so 336121d000-336121e000 rw-p 0001d000 08:06 9297034 /lib64/ld-2.8.so 336220-3362362000 r-xp 08:06 9297035 /lib64/libc-2.8.so 3362362000-3362562000 ---p 00162000 08:06 9297035 /lib64/libc-2.8.so 3362562000-3362566000 r--p 00162000 08:06 9297035 /lib64/libc-2.8.so 3362566000-3362567000 rw-p 00166000 08:06 9297035 /lib64/libc-2.8.so 3362567000-336256c000 rw-p 3362567000 00:00 0 336360-3363615000 r-xp 08:06 9297066 /lib64/libz.so.1.2.3 3363615000-3363814000 ---p 00015000 08:06 9297066 /lib64/libz.so.1.2.3 3363814000-3363815000 rw-p 00014000 08:06 9297066 /lib64/libz.so.1.2.3 3368a0-3368a16000 r-xp 08:06 9297068 /lib64/libgcc_s-4.3.0-20080428.so.1 3368a16000-3368c15000 ---p 00016000 08:06 9297068 /lib64/libgcc_s-4.3.0-20080428.so.1 3368c15000-3368c16000 rw-p 00015000 08:06 9297068 /lib64/libgcc_s-4.3.0-20080428.so.1 7f8506ed9000-7f850709a000 rw-p 7f8506ed9000 00:00 0 7f85070be000-7f85070c2000 rw-p 7f85070be000 00:00 0 7fff0f0ad000-7fff0f0c2000 rw-p 7ffea000 00:00 0 [stack] 7fff0f1fe000-7fff0f20 r-xp 7fff0f1fe000 00:00 0 [vdso] ff60-ff601000 r-xp 00:00 0 [vsyscall] Aborted bash-3.2$ -- Summary: addr2line frees an invalid pointer Product: binutils Version: 2.19 (HEAD) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils AssignedTo: unassigned at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: hjl dot tools at gmail dot com CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6743 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6743] addr2line frees an invalid pointer
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-13 15:56 --- Hi Craig, your patch: http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-06/msg00203.html caused this regression. -- What|Removed |Added CC||csilvers at google dot com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6743 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6743] addr2line frees an invalid pointer
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-13 16:38 --- The correct behaviour should be bash-3.2$ ./addr2line -e addr2line 0x401f49 /export/gnu/import/binutils-last/src/binutils/addr2line.c:341 bash-3.2$ -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6743 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6743] addr2line frees an invalid pointer
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-13
19:56 ---
bash-3.2$ ./addr2line -e ./addr2line `nm -n --defined-only ./addr2line |head
-1 | awk '{print $1}'`
??:0
*** glibc detected *** ./addr2line: munmap_chunk(): invalid pointer:
0x7f60c57010a2 ***
=== Backtrace: =
/lib64/libc.so.6[0x3362278158]
./addr2line[0x41f87a]
./addr2line[0x40a719]
./addr2line[0x4025d4]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xfa)[0x336221e32a]
./addr2line(calloc+0x149)[0x401f49]
=== Memory map:
0040-004c9000 r-xp 08:11 14549834
/export/build/gnu/binutils/next/binutils/addr2line
006c9000-006cc000 rw-p 000c9000 08:11 14549834
/export/build/gnu/binutils/next/binutils/addr2line
006cc000-006d rw-p 006cc000 00:00 0
02603000-026d1000 rw-p 02603000 00:00 0 [heap]
336100-336101d000 r-xp 08:06 9297034
/lib64/ld-2.8.so
336121c000-336121d000 r--p 0001c000 08:06 9297034
/lib64/ld-2.8.so
336121d000-336121e000 rw-p 0001d000 08:06 9297034
/lib64/ld-2.8.so
336220-3362362000 r-xp 08:06 9297035
/lib64/libc-2.8.so
3362362000-3362562000 ---p 00162000 08:06 9297035
/lib64/libc-2.8.so
3362562000-3362566000 r--p 00162000 08:06 9297035
/lib64/libc-2.8.so
3362566000-3362567000 rw-p 00166000 08:06 9297035
/lib64/libc-2.8.so
3362567000-336256c000 rw-p 3362567000 00:00 0
336360-3363615000 r-xp 08:06 9297066
/lib64/libz.so.1.2.3
3363615000-3363814000 ---p 00015000 08:06 9297066
/lib64/libz.so.1.2.3
3363814000-3363815000 rw-p 00014000 08:06 9297066
/lib64/libz.so.1.2.3
3368a0-3368a16000 r-xp 08:06 9297068
/lib64/libgcc_s-4.3.0-20080428.so.1
3368a16000-3368c15000 ---p 00016000 08:06 9297068
/lib64/libgcc_s-4.3.0-20080428.so.1
3368c15000-3368c16000 rw-p 00015000 08:06 9297068
/lib64/libgcc_s-4.3.0-20080428.so.1
7f60c5571000-7f60c5732000 rw-p 7f60c5571000 00:00 0
7f60c5756000-7f60c575a000 rw-p 7f60c5756000 00:00 0
7fffcd745000-7fffcd75a000 rw-p 7ffea000 00:00 0 [stack]
7fffcd7fe000-7fffcd80 r-xp 7fffcd7fe000 00:00 0 [vdso]
ff60-ff601000 r-xp 00:00 0
[vsyscall]
Aborted
bash-3.2$ /usr/bin/addr2line -e ./addr2line `nm -n --defined-only ./addr2line
|head -1 | awk '{print $1}'`
??:0
bash-3.2$
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6743
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6743] addr2line frees an invalid pointer
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-13
23:43 ---
On Linux, to reproduce it, you may try
[EMAIL PROTECTED] binutils]$ MALLOC_CHECK_=1 ./addr2line -e ./addr2line `nm -n
--defined-only ./addr2line |head -1 | awk '{print $1}'`
malloc: using debugging hooks
??:0
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x002a95734d53 ***
[EMAIL PROTECTED] binutils]$
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6743
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/6743] addr2line frees an invalid pointer
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-13 23:52 --- (In reply to comment #5) > I've figured out the crashing bug, and can fix that. I tried your test and it > gave a different line number than you got, but I assume that's due to build > differences. But just to make sure, do you mind applying the following patch, > and verifying it fixes things at your end? > Yes, it fixed the crash. Thanks. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6743 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6747] regression: ld adds -fpic private flag
-- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6747 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/4424] Can't link in Linux object files on FreeBSD
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-15
17:22 ---
We missed a case of linking Linux .o against FreeBSD .so:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] weak-11]$ cat foo.c
extern void () __attribute__((weak));
void _start(void)
{
if (& != 0)
();
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] weak-11]$ cat bar.c
void
__attribute__((weak))
()
{
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] weak-11]$ make
gcc -O2 -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -c -o foo.o foo.c
gcc -O2 -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -fPIC -c -o bar.o bar.c
./ld -shared -o libbar.so bar.o
./ld -o foo foo.o libbar.so
readelf -s foo | grep
1: 004002a0 2 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT UND
15: 004002a0 2 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT UND
[EMAIL PROTECTED] weak-11]$ ./ld -V
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.18.50.20080715
Supported emulations:
elf_x86_64_fbsd
elf_i386_fbsd
elf_x86_64
elf_i386
[EMAIL PROTECTED] weak-11]$
It should be
readelf -s foo | grep
1: 004002a0 2 FUNCWEAK DEFAULT UND
15: 004002a0 2 FUNCWEAK DEFAULT UND
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4424
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/4424] Can't link in Linux object files on FreeBSD
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-15 17:34 --- A new patch is posted at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-07/msg00207.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4424 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/4424] Can't link in Linux object files on FreeBSD
-- What|Removed |Added Version|2.18|2.19 (HEAD) http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4424 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6446] Handling of EF_FRV_PIC
-- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||6747 nThis|| http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6446 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6747] regression: ld adds -fpic private flag
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-15 18:35 --- This is caused by http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2008-05/msg00092.html specifically the proposed patch for http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6446 -- What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||6446 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6747 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6748] regression: arm ld segfaults
-- What|Removed |Added CC||hjl dot tools at gmail dot ||com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6748 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6747] regression: ld adds -fpic private flag
-- What|Removed |Added CC||nickc at redhat dot com http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6747 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6446] Handling of EF_FRV_PIC
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-15 18:52 --- (In reply to comment #1) > Created an attachment (id=2748) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2748&action=view) > Set EF_FRV_PIC by default (for FDPIC).Clear it if any inter-segment > relocations are found > This patch caused PR 6747. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6446 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6748] regression: arm ld segfaults
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-15 19:03 --- I can't reproduce it on Fedora 9/x86-64 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ld]$ ./ld-new -EL -r /tmp/tmp_main.o -T /tmp/tmp_main.ver -V GNU ld (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.18.50.0.8.20080709 Supported emulations: armelf_linux armelf armelfb armelfb_linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] ld]$ -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6748 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6748] regression: arm ld segfaults
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-07-15 19:50 --- A patch is posted at http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-07/msg00214.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6748 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug ld/6748] regression: arm ld segfaults
-- What|Removed |Added CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6748 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
