https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22920
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |wilson at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
Yo
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22920
Jim Wilson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22920
--- Comment #4 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by Jim Wilson :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=770aa8a3d3da978a35520af5f205ab2d8a5371a0
commit 770aa8a3d3da978a35520af5f205a
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #5)
> Hi H.J.
>
> > The value will be wrong. Linker can only resolve PC relative relocations>
> > against local definition.
> But can't the linker assume that the object
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 10873
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10873&action=edit
Assembler source for the object file
Hi H.J.
Here is the assembler source.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi H.J.
> The value will be wrong. Linker can only resolve PC relative relocations>
> against local definition.
But can't the linker assume that the object is located at address 0 and
resolve the relocat
Hi H.J.
> The value will be wrong. Linker can only resolve PC relative relocations>
> against local definition.
But can't the linker assume that the object is located at address 0 and
resolve the relocations using that ? It does not matter that this address
will not match the run-time address o
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
--- Comment #4 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> The value will be wrong. Linker can only resolve PC relative relocations
> against local definition.
Agreed. I think we need to fix the producer for these reloca
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #2)
> Hi H.J.
>
> > Since these relocations
> > are in non-allocatable sections, should linker treat them as in
> > debug section?
>
> Ideally not. If I understand the c
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi H.J.
> Since these relocations
> are in non-allocatable sections, should linker treat them as in
> debug section?
Ideally not. If I understand the code correctly the debug relocations
are just silentl
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
Assignee|unassigned at so
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|x86_64 linker seg-faults|x86_64 linker seg-faults
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fweimer at redhat dot com
--
You ar
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22929
Bug ID: 22929
Summary: x86_64 linker seg-faults when creating a shared object
from an input containg relocations against a note
section
Product: binutils
Versi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22920
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22923
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10
16 matches
Mail list logo