[Bug ld/31795] ld.bfd makes ELFs of type ET_EXEC for PIEs when load address is non-0

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31795 --- Comment #70 from mintsuki --- The bug is still present in 2.43.1. I also elevated the importance to "critical" since I was allowed to do so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ld/31795] ld.bfd makes ELFs of type ET_EXEC for PIEs when load address is non-0

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31795 mintsuki changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |critical -- You are receiving this mail b

[Bug ld/31795] ld.bfd makes ELFs of type ET_EXEC for PIEs when load address is non-0

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31795 mintsuki changed: What|Removed |Added Version|2.43|2.43.1 -- You are receiving this mail bec

[Bug gas/32091] binutils, gas/config/tc-i386-ginsn.c:495, error: ‘ginsn_func’ may be used uninitialized

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32091 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||indu.bhagat at oracle dot com -- You are

[Bug gprofng/32097] New: Warnings when building gprofng with Clang

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32097 Bug ID: 32097 Summary: Warnings when building gprofng with Clang Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: g

[Bug gprofng/32095] Add support for building gprofng with ubsan

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32095 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement -- You are receiving this ma

[Bug gprofng/32092] gprofng testsuite fails with -flto (ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed)

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 --- Comment #5 from Sam James --- Testing with LTO + UBSAN showed a bunch of issues, see PR32096. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug gprofng/32096] UBSAN issues in gprofng

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32096 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- See the attached gprofng.log for the single test for the errors, but a snippet below: ``` /tmp/binutils-gdb/gprofng/src/Settings.cc:265:27: runtime error: load of value 3200171710, which is not a valid value

[Bug gprofng/32096] UBSAN issues in gprofng

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32096 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug gprofng/32095] Add support for building gprofng with ubsan

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32095 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug gprofng/32096] New: UBSAN issues in gprofng

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32096 Bug ID: 32096 Summary: UBSAN issues in gprofng Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: gprofng A

[Bug gprofng/32092] gprofng testsuite fails with -flto (ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed)

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||32096 Referenced Bugs: https://sourcewa

[Bug gprofng/32092] gprofng testsuite fails with -flto (ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed)

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||32095 Referenced Bugs: https://sourcewa

[Bug gprofng/32095] Add support for building gprofng with ubsan

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32095 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||32092 Referenced Bugs: https://sourcewa

[Bug gprofng/32095] New: Add support for building gprofng with ubsan

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32095 Bug ID: 32095 Summary: Add support for building gprofng with ubsan Product: binutils Version: unspecified Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component:

[Bug gprofng/32092] gprofng testsuite fails with -flto (ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed)

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- jsynprog.-g-Wall,-pon-jon/display.log is pretty different too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug gprofng/32092] gprofng testsuite fails with -flto (ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed)

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|gprofng testsuite fails |gprofng testsuite fails

[Bug gprofng/32092] gprofng testsuite fails with ERROR: comparison of results in synprog failed

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32092 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- $ diff -u /tmp/binutils.CPO0sda/gprofng/tmpdir/synprog.-g-O0,-pon/display.log display.log --- /tmp/binutils.CPO0sda/gprofng/tmpdir/synprog.-g-O0,-pon/display.log 2024-08-18 07:45:56.613187167 +0100 +++ displa