--- Additional Comments From drangon dot mail at gmail dot com 2007-09-16
06:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=2008)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2008&action=view)
asm code by x86_64-pc-mingw32-g++.exe -S
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=503
--- Additional Comments From drangon dot mail at gmail dot com 2007-09-16
06:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=2007)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2007&action=view)
cpp file of hello world
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5035
--- You ar
--- Additional Comments From drangon dot mail at gmail dot com 2007-09-16
06:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=2006)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2006&action=view)
result of asm code by x86_64-pc-mingw32-gcc.exe -S
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Additional Comments From drangon dot mail at gmail dot com 2007-09-16
06:34 ---
Created an attachment (id=2005)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2005&action=view)
source code of c testcase
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5035
--- You
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-09-16 03:19 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> current 2.18 branch as well as CVS head exhibit same bug as the 2.18 release
In Linux binutils source tree, there is a patch for bug 3281 under "patches"
You can try it on binutils from CVS
--- Additional Comments From vapier at gentoo dot org 2007-09-16 02:21
---
current 2.18 branch as well as CVS head exhibit same bug as the 2.18 release
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5037
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list
--- Additional Comments From vapier at gentoo dot org 2007-09-16 01:52
---
thought i had tested 2.18.50.0.1 already, but i guess not ...
strip in 2.18.50.0.1 does not mess up the PT, but strip in 2.18 does
i'll give the branch a spin as well
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_b
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-09-16 01:35 ---
Does it with the current Linux binutils?
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-09-16
00:40 ---
HJ, I think you closed this bug too soon. On a 32-bit host, binutils configured
with 64-bit bfd support will behave as reported.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From vapier at gentoo dot org 2007-09-15 22:59
---
Created an attachment (id=2004)
--> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2004&action=view)
unstripped x86_64 dumpelf
linked with vanilla binutils-2.18
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
using gcc-3.4.6 and building a PIE binary with -z relro results in an ELF that,
when stripped, causes the PT_GNU_RELRO to shrink the memsize more than the
filesize ... perhaps this is a dupe of Bug 3281 ...
$ gcc-3.4.6 dumpelf.c -o dumpelf -fPIE -Wl,-z,relro
$ readelf -Wl dumpelf | grep GNU_REL
GN
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-09-15 22:10 ---
Fixed by
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-09/msg00202.html
--
What|Removed |Added
St
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-09-15 20:58 ---
The current binutils in CVS shows
[EMAIL PROTECTED] big-1]$ cat x.s
.word 0x1234567890
[EMAIL PROTECTED] big-1]$ make
./as -o x.o x.s
x.s: Assembler messages:
x.s:1: Warning: bignum truncated to 2 bytes
[EMA
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at lucon dot org
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5026
--- You are receiving this mail
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl at lucon dot org
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5034
--- You are receiving this mail
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-09-15 20:37 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I compile a cross compiler --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu
> --target=x86_64-pc-mingw32,
> Then use this cross compiler to compile a native binutils and gcc,
> Then I run the native x86_64-pc-
16 matches
Mail list logo
