Re: [ARM/THUMB] Incorrect branch generated for long calls

2010-06-11 Thread Rafaël Carré
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:29:55 +0200 Tristan Gingold wrote: > > On Jun 11, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 15:35 +0200, Rafaël Carré wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I just met a possible bug in binutils 2.20.1 when mixing ARM/Thumb > >> code under some conditi

Re: [ARM/THUMB] Incorrect branch generated for long calls

2010-06-11 Thread Rafaël Carré
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:26:14 +0100 Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote: > On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 15:35 +0200, Rafaël Carré wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I just met a possible bug in binutils 2.20.1 when mixing ARM/Thumb > > code under some conditions. > > > > I wouldn't mind a confirmation that it's a real bug

Re: [ARM/THUMB] Incorrect branch generated for long calls

2010-06-11 Thread Matthew Gretton-Dann
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 15:35 +0200, Rafaël Carré wrote: > Hi, > > I just met a possible bug in binutils 2.20.1 when mixing ARM/Thumb code > under some conditions. > > I wouldn't mind a confirmation that it's a real bug before opening an > entry in bugzilla. This is indeed a bug in binutils 2.20.1

Re: [ARM/THUMB] Incorrect branch generated for long calls

2010-06-11 Thread Christophe LYON
On 11.06.2010 15:35, Rafaël Carré wrote: Hi, I just met a possible bug in binutils 2.20.1 when mixing ARM/Thumb code under some conditions. I wouldn't mind a confirmation that it's a real bug before opening an entry in bugzilla. Thanks for the detailed report. It looks like this bug has been

Re: [ARM/THUMB] Incorrect branch generated for long calls

2010-06-11 Thread Tristan Gingold
On Jun 11, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote: > On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 15:35 +0200, Rafaël Carré wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just met a possible bug in binutils 2.20.1 when mixing ARM/Thumb code >> under some conditions. >> >> I wouldn't mind a confirmation that it's a real bug before openi

[ARM/THUMB] Incorrect branch generated for long calls

2010-06-11 Thread Rafaël Carré
Hi, I just met a possible bug in binutils 2.20.1 when mixing ARM/Thumb code under some conditions. I wouldn't mind a confirmation that it's a real bug before opening an entry in bugzilla. This happens when the target function is: - ARM (32bits) code - not accessible with a short

[Bug gold/11694] Statically linked programs trying to dlopen themselves hang when linked with gold

2010-06-11 Thread ian at airs dot com
--- Additional Comments From ian at airs dot com 2010-06-11 13:10 --- gold does not yet support STT_GNU_IFUNC symbols at all. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug gold/11694] New: Statically linked programs trying to dlopen themselves hang when linked with gold

2010-06-11 Thread bero at arklinux dot org
When using gold (Last tested version: GNU gold (Linux/GNU Binutils 2.20.51.0.9.20100526) 1.9), the check done in various autoconf scripts (checking whether a statically linked program can dlopen itself) hangs forever, with conftest taking up 100% CPU time. Switching the linker to the old ld fi