Re: Memory leak in ld.so-2.4

2007-04-19 Thread Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
Dears > > A piece of valgrind log file is: > > > > ==9293==    at 0x402073E: calloc (in > > /usr/lib/valgrind/x86-linux/vgpreload_memcheck.so) > > ==9293==    by 0x40105C8: allocate_dtv (in /lib/ld-2.4.so) > > ==9293==    by 0x401068B: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.4.so) > > ==9293==    by 0x405

Re: Memory leak in ld.so-2.4

2007-04-19 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There is a memory leak in ld.so. > > A piece of valgrind log file is: > > ==9293==    at 0x402073E: calloc (in > /usr/lib/valgrind/x86-linux/vgpreload_memcheck.so) > ==9293==    by 0x40105C8: allocate_dtv (in /lib/ld-2.4.so) > ==9293==    

Memory leaks in ld.so-2.4

2007-04-19 Thread Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
Dear Madamme or Sir I want to send you information about memory leaks in ld.so. A piece of valgrind log file is: ==9293==at 0x402073E: calloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/x86-linux/vgpreload_memcheck.so) ==9293==by 0x40105C8: allocate_dtv (in /lib/ld-2.4.so) ==9293==by 0x401068B: _dl_alloc

Memory leak in ld.so-2.4

2007-04-19 Thread Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki
Dears There is a memory leak in ld.so. A piece of valgrind log file is: ==9293==    at 0x402073E: calloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/x86-linux/vgpreload_memcheck.so) ==9293==    by 0x40105C8: allocate_dtv (in /lib/ld-2.4.so) ==9293==    by 0x401068B: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.4.so) ==9293==    by

[Bug ld/4284] Linker "relax" option results in bad subroutine calls

2007-04-19 Thread sbell at dataplay dot com
--- Additional Comments From sbell at dataplay dot com 2007-04-19 22:09 --- This seems to be some interaction between FreeRTOS (currently version 4.2.1) and the relax function of the linker, perhaps because the linker replaces CALL with RCALL (or vice versa). At any rate, it's very diff

Re: More: binutils-2.17 build tries to modify distribution directory

2007-04-19 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 03:21:42PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi again > Regarding modifying the dist.directory, my "Not so bad, the build proceeds > alright" > below was optimistic. When the dist. directory is totally read-only (such as > on > a read-only disk, or wich "chmod -R go-w

More: binutils-2.17 build tries to modify distribution directory

2007-04-19 Thread anirkko
Hi again Regarding modifying the dist.directory, my "Not so bad, the build proceeds alright" below was optimistic. When the dist. directory is totally read-only (such as on a read-only disk, or wich "chmod -R go-w binutils-2.17"), the build fails at the step shown below. What is the point of bui

binutils-2.17 build tries to modify distribution directory

2007-04-19 Thread anirkko
Hi When building binutils-2.17 in a different obj directory (as recommended), with the original distribution directory write protected/owned by a different user, one notices that the build process tries to modify the distribution directory (with messages such as "Permission denied" and "touch: can

yet another binutils-2.17 -Werror failure (in gas/read.c)

2007-04-19 Thread anirkko
and again: Using gcc-4.1.2, build of binutils-2.17 also fails in gas/read.c due to -Werror warning: Here, it seems to me that the code is ok. Maybe the compiler assumes that flag_mri can change between the paired uses of stopc, possibly because stopc is global and might be modified by another thr

Re: another -Werror failure during build binutils-2.17

2007-04-19 Thread anirkko
Hi again. Interesting, gcc-4.1.2 seems to discover initialization problems even across function calls, triggering another -Werror failure in build of binutils-2.17: In file binutils/wrstabs.c the initialization is lacking in stab_tag_type(), and the compiler tells us this, but points out line 12

[Bug binutils/4334] MAKE FAILED: cpu-powerpc.o isn't added to libbfd.a ?

2007-04-19 Thread freakoftheindustry at gmail dot com
--- Additional Comments From freakoftheindustry at gmail dot com 2007-04-19 20:02 --- Followup: forcing a binmode mount for the directory tree used for building avoids this problem (but raises others later on... those are not concerned with binutils however). -- http://sourceware.

[Bug binutils/4334] MAKE FAILED: cpu-powerpc.o isn't added to libbfd.a ?

2007-04-19 Thread freakoftheindustry at gmail dot com
--- Additional Comments From freakoftheindustry at gmail dot com 2007-04-19 19:40 --- Short version: it's nothing to do with cpu-powerpc.c. That file simply happens to be the last file in a list of filenames, which is then being dropped due to Cygwin line ending problems. Long version

[Bug ld/4302] [regression] ld fails to link gcc-4.1's libstdc++ debug build

2007-04-19 Thread plugwash at p10link dot net
--- Additional Comments From plugwash at p10link dot net 2007-04-19 19:10 --- so has anyone actually reported this to the gcc guys yet and if so where? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list

[Bug binutils/4334] MAKE FAILED: cpu-powerpc.o isn't added to libbfd.a ?

2007-04-19 Thread willw at carallon dot com
--- Additional Comments From willw at carallon dot com 2007-04-19 16:48 --- I have seen exactly the same thing. Cygwin compiling 2.17 for powerpc/ I have investigated the bit in bfd/configure. Has two targets cpu-rs6000.lo & cpu-powerpc.lo These both appear in the Makefile under the bf

Re: build binutils-2.17 fails with gcc-4.1.2 because default -Werror

2007-04-19 Thread Nick Clifton
Hi Guys, I have applied the patch together with this ChangeLog entry. Cheers Nick bfd/ChangeLog 2007-04-19 Nick Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * coffcode.h (coff_rtype_to_howto): Initialise genrel.howto. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bu