[Bug gold/18959] gold doesn't respect alignment of .rodata.str.* section

2015-09-14 Thread koriakin at 0x04 dot net
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18959 --- Comment #3 from Marcin Kościelnicki --- Thanks for looking. I don't have write access to the repo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils m

[Bug gold/14187] gold incorrectly requires hexadecimals to start with 0x with -Ttext/-Tdata/-Tbss

2015-09-14 Thread ccoutant at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14187 --- Comment #14 from Cary Coutant --- (In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #13) > (In reply to Cary Coutant from comment #11) > > Created attachment 8557 [details] > > Patch to fix gold to parse -Ttext, etc., options as hex numbers > > The a

[Bug gold/18935] Gold assert fail when moving dot in NOLOAD section.

2015-09-14 Thread ccoutant at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18935 --- Comment #2 from Cary Coutant --- > Seems a bit unclear what the expected behavior is. > > .init_stack (NOLOAD) : > { >. = . + 0x200; > } :ph_load > With this ld.bfd creates a NOBITS SHF_ALLOC section(just like .bss). > > When a new

[Bug gold/18959] gold doesn't respect alignment of .rodata.str.* section

2015-09-14 Thread ccoutant at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18959 --- Comment #2 from Cary Coutant --- > How about this patch? Seems to fix the issue on s390. However, the empty > string > seems to have been special-cased on purpose and I'm afraid it could mess > something up. I don't really know why the e

[Bug ld/17709] [2.26 Regression] elf/vismain test in glibc failed

2015-09-14 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17709 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||18636 Referenced Bugs: https://sourceware

[Bug ld/18636] Relocation agains protected symbol can not be used when making a shared object

2015-09-14 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18636 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Depends on|

[Bug ld/18636] Relocation agains protected symbol can not be used when making a shared object

2015-09-14 Thread rmansfield at qnx dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18636 Ryan Mansfield changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rmansfield at qnx dot com -- You ar

[Bug gold/18378] Implement GOLD backend support for IBM z Systems

2015-09-14 Thread koriakin at 0x04 dot net
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18378 --- Comment #16 from Marcin Kościelnicki --- (In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #15) > (In reply to Marcin Kościelnicki from comment #13) > > Created attachment 8609 [details] > > patch #4 - the main course (with 32-bit PLT fix) > > >

[Bug gold/18378] Implement GOLD backend support for IBM z Systems

2015-09-14 Thread krebbel at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18378 --- Comment #15 from Andreas Krebbel --- (In reply to Marcin Kościelnicki from comment #13) > Created attachment 8609 [details] > patch #4 - the main course (with 32-bit PLT fix) > > One fix added: I found a bug in handling of PLT entries wit

[Bug gold/18378] Implement GOLD backend support for IBM z Systems

2015-09-14 Thread koriakin at 0x04 dot net
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18378 --- Comment #14 from Marcin Kościelnicki --- I've posted the patches on the mailing list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list b

[Bug gold/18378] Implement GOLD backend support for IBM z Systems

2015-09-14 Thread koriakin at 0x04 dot net
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18378 Marcin Kościelnicki changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #8608|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug gold/18378] Implement GOLD backend support for IBM z Systems

2015-09-14 Thread krebbel at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18378 --- Comment #12 from Andreas Krebbel --- (In reply to Marcin Kościelnicki from comment #11) > Does that look OK? Great! Looks good to me from a first glance, but I'll need some time to actually do a review. Could you please post the patches o