Number of bfd_count_sections changes during bfd_simple_get_relocated_section_contents

2022-07-12 Thread Tom de Vries
uring bfd_simple_get_relocated_section_contents The question is: is this expected behaviour for bfd, or is this in fact a bfd bug that needs fixing? Thanks, - Tom

[Bug ld/19011] Issues with ld on mingw-w64 and bad defaults

2018-10-11 Thread tom at ritter dot vg
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19011 --- Comment #7 from Tom Ritter --- This is a big drive-by, as I don't have much understanding on the details of the problem; but Tor uses the following patch to add a relocation section so Windows builds of Tor Browser can have ASLR:

[Bug binutils/23061] objcopy segfault in coff_mangle_symbols

2018-04-16 Thread tom at ritter dot vg
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23061 --- Comment #3 from Tom Ritter --- Thanks Nick. With the patch, I no longer get a segfault. However, looking at the patch, it seems to me that it just does a sanity check to prevent doing something that would be illegal. I had thought my

[Bug binutils/23061] New: objcopy segfault in coff_mangle_symbols

2018-04-13 Thread tom at ritter dot vg
Component: binutils Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: tom at ritter dot vg Target Milestone: --- Using commit: commit 4a4495d62d185bdae17ed6aae6ea8249ad07c799 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Author: Markus Metzger Date: Fri Feb 2 12:29:48 2

[Bug ld/19011] Issues with ld on mingw-w64 and bad defaults

2017-09-26 Thread tom at ritter dot vg
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19011 Tom Ritter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tom at ritter dot vg -- You are

[Bug ld/11675] -- oformat binary or srec broken

2015-02-16 Thread tom at bumblecow dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11675 Tom Rix changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC

comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions in process_extended_line_op

2014-11-18 Thread Tom de Vries
27;s due to commit 6937bb54a9c3ddc7ba330bc18af76f8dbe856ac3 (More fixes for illegal memory accesses exposed by fuzzed binaries). Thanks, - Tom ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils

Re: extrq wrong operand?

2013-04-15 Thread Tom Horsley
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:28:44 + Ekanathan, Saravanan wrote: > Hi Tom Horsley, > Binutils and AMD manual looks ok. Yea, I eventually figured out that the 'V' form of the operand couldn't possibly go with the 'reg' field being used as to decode the operator.

extrq wrong operand?

2013-04-11 Thread Tom Horsley
If I'm reading the AMD manuals correctly, the extrq instruction has one form with operands described in the table as Vdq,Ib,Ib. The V in Vdq is described as being the ModRM reg field. If I disassemble an example with objdump, I see this: objdump: 40356c: 66 0f 78 c1 02 04 extrq $0x4,

[Bug binutils/969] objdump: wrong Coldfire disassembly

2009-10-14 Thread tom at hukatronic dot cz
--- Additional Comments From tom at hukatronic dot cz 2009-10-14 12:31 --- Thanks for applying the patch. I almost forget that I wrote it a four years ago. :-) -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=969 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the

ld: BFD 2.16.91 20060118 Debian GNU/Linux internal error, aborting at ../../bfd/elf32-i386.c line 3117 in elf_i386_finish_dynamic_symbol

2006-04-30 Thread Tom
I'm getting this error while trying to compile Mozilla FireFox 1.5.0.2 on Ubuntu 6.0.6. Here's the output generated by 'make' at this point... md/unix/./uxshm.o: In function `_MD_OpenSharedMemory':uxshm.c:(.text+0xf4): undefined reference to `open' :uxshm.c:(.text+0x106): undefined reference to `

[Bug gas/991] operands mismatch on correct m68040 instruction

2005-06-08 Thread tom at hukatronic dot cz
--- Additional Comments From tom at hukatronic dot cz 2005-06-08 10:05 --- Proposed fix also fixed the problem reported in http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/2005-06/msg0.html -- http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=991 --- You are receiving this

[Bug gas/991] operands mismatch on correct m68040 instruction

2005-06-03 Thread tom at hukatronic dot cz
--- Additional Comments From tom at hukatronic dot cz 2005-06-03 15:50 --- Created an attachment (id=504) --> (http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=504&action=view) Proposed patch to fix problem with operand matching -- http://sources.redhat.com/b

[Bug gas/991] operands mismatch on correct m68040 instruction

2005-06-03 Thread tom at hukatronic dot cz
--- Additional Comments From tom at hukatronic dot cz 2005-06-03 15:51 --- Created an attachment (id=505) --> (http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=505&action=view) Proposed patch to fix problem with opcode ordering -- http://sources.redhat.com/b

[Bug gas/991] operands mismatch on correct m68040 instruction

2005-06-03 Thread tom at hukatronic dot cz
--- Additional Comments From tom at hukatronic dot cz 2005-06-03 15:04 --- I believe that this bug is caused by two separate problems in gas/config/tc-m68k.c file. First problem is in operands matching against opcode table (function m68k_ip, big for-loop around line 1216

[Bug gas/991] New: operands mismatch on correct m68040 instruction

2005-06-03 Thread tom at hukatronic dot cz
ed at sources dot redhat dot com ReportedBy: tom at hukatronic dot cz CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org GCC build triplet: powerpc-apple-darwin7.9.0 GCC host triplet: powerpc-apple-darwin7.9.0 GCC target triplet: m68k-bsd-elf http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.c

[Bug gas/991] operands mismatch on correct m68040 instruction

2005-06-03 Thread tom at hukatronic dot cz
--- Additional Comments From tom at hukatronic dot cz 2005-06-03 14:07 --- Created an attachment (id=503) --> (http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=503&action=view) source file to trigger this bug -- http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi