[Bug binutils/24281] New: Failed with “thin archive” if it contain subdir's object file
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24281
Bug ID: 24281
Summary: Failed with “thin archive” if it contain subdir's
object file
Product: binutils
Version: 2.26
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: qwertytmp1 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Please use following shell commands to reproduce the problem:
```
# create subdirectory
mkdir subdir
# create source files with dummy functions
echo 'void func1(){}' > file1.c
echo 'void func2(){}' > ./subdir/file2.c
# compiling sources into object files
gcc -c file1.c -o file1.o
gcc -c ./subdir/file2.c -o ./subdir/file2.o
# creating "thin archive" file from object files
ar crT out.a file1.o ./subdir/file2.o
# running objcopy, which leads to an error
objcopy out.a out_copy.a
```
As a result, following error occurs:
```
objcopy:st0AENRL/subdir/file2.o: No such file or directory
```
Problem with objcopy occurs when "thin" archive is composed of object files
from subdirectories.
P.S. Problem was also described on StackOverflow:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54907402/problem-while-using-objcopy-with-thin-archive-file
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/24281] Failed with “thin archive” if it contain subdir's object file
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24281 lol lol changed: What|Removed |Added Version|2.26|2.32 --- Comment #1 from lol lol --- Bug was reproduced on versions 2.26 and 2.32. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/24281] Failed with “thin archive” if it contain subdir's object file
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24281 --- Comment #3 from lol lol --- Hi Nick, Q. Hmm, you do realise that copying a thin library in this way is essentially the same thing as just copying it normally, right? A. Yes. It was chosen for simplicity. Anyway, it shouldn't fail. Can you agree? Q. The question is, what would you expect objcopy to do if you also had one or more of its transformation options enabled as well. For example, what should this do: objcopy --strip-debug out.a out_copy.a A. I expect similar behavior as for other "non-thin" object files. Why not to do "--strip-debug" for all included files recursively? It may be done in-place, or done with a copy. Q. Would you expect objcopy to create new versions of all of the object files linked to within out.a, with the debugging stripped from the new versions ? If so, what names should be given to these new object files ? Or how about: objcopy out.a subdir/copy.a Would you expect objcopy to leave the object files intact but to rename the links inside copy.a so that they are valid for the new location of the thin library ? A. In this case (case, when objcopy pretends to change object files), we may simply notify user, that object files will be rewritten and wait for the confirmation. Q. It seems to me that the easiest thing to do would be to just reject attempts to objcopy thin archives. But maybe this is too draconian. Would you be happy if an in-place copy of a thin archive was allowed, but transformations, or relocations were refused? A. I think, it is not a bad idea to simply disallow objcopy for thin archives till the moment, when it will be supported (in alternative future). I think it is not of "draconian" attempt. This way, user of this magic tool will not be confused at all. Thank you! WBR, lol lol -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/25104] New: Missing object file in resulting thin archive
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104 Bug ID: 25104 Summary: Missing object file in resulting thin archive Product: binutils Version: 2.26 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: qwertytmp1 at gmail dot com Target Milestone: --- Problem occurs when creating thin archive from the file (file0.o) and from another thin archive, which contains file with the same filename (subfolder/file0.o). I found this behavior of ar utility at list as strange. It is possible to reproduce this problem using following list of commands: ``` mkdir reproducing_ar_bug cd reproducing_ar_bug touch file0.o mkdir subfolder cd subfolder touch file0.o touch file1.o ar rcST built-in.o file0.o file1.o cd .. ar rcST built-in.o subfolder/built-in.o file0.o ``` In this case final built-in.o doesn't contain subfolder/file0.o: ``` ! // 28` file0.o/ subfolder/file1.o/ ... ``` But if change final ar command from: ``` ar rcST built-in.o subfolder/built-in.o file0.o ``` to ``` ar rcST built-in.o file0.o subfolder/built-in.o ``` Result is correct: ``` ! // 48` file0.o/ subfolder/file0.o/ subfolder/file1.o/ ``` P.S. List of commands with correct behavior: ``` mkdir reproducing_ar_bug cd reproducing_ar_bug touch file0.o mkdir subfolder cd subfolder touch file0.o touch file1.o ar rcST built-in.o file0.o file1.o cd .. ar rcST built-in.o file0.o subfolder/built-in.o ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/25104] Missing object file in resulting thin archive
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104 lol lol changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qwertytmp1 at gmail dot com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/25104] Missing object file in resulting thin archive
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104 --- Comment #2 from lol lol --- Alan, thank you for this hint. It works for me. Anyway, it is a buggy behavior. "man ar" says: ``` AR(1) GNU Development Tools P Use the full path name when matching names in the archive. GNU ar can not create an archive with a full path name (such archives are not POSIX complaint), but other archive creators can. This option will cause GNU ar to match file names using a complete path name, which can be convenient when extracting a single file from an archive created by another tool. ``` Use of this P flags leads to POSIX compliance issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/25104] Wrong operation when creating thin archive
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104 lol lol changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Missing object file in |Wrong operation when |resulting thin archive |creating thin archive -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/25104] Wrong operation when creating thin archive
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104 --- Comment #5 from lol lol --- Dear Alan, currently I have problems with access to the build machine (latest git revision). I have a question. Is this change fixes behavior of: ``` mkdir reproducing_ar_bug cd reproducing_ar_bug touch file0.o mkdir subfolder cd subfolder touch file0.o touch file1.o ar rcST built-in.o file0.o file1.o cd .. ar rcST built-in.o subfolder/built-in.o file0.o ``` ? Thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug binutils/25104] Wrong operation when creating thin archive
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25104 --- Comment #7 from lol lol --- Thank you for clarification. Anyway, there is a feeling that such behavior breaks some logic. I.e., order of link objects leads to different results. At the same time, when using P flag - result is the same. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
