https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32991
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32991
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #2)
> We had a report of this as well but I wasn't sure if it was a bug. These
> jumps happen with new relocation types at least.
Please open a new bug report if it isn't the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32991
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|"pushl main@GOT(%ebx)" is |"pushl main@GOT(%ebx)" is
ponent: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: i386
sysdeps/i386/start.S has
# ifdef SHARED
pushl main@GOT(%ebx)
# else
linker relaxed it to
22c: e9 cf ff ff ff jmp200
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #12)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #11)
> > Created attachment 16093 [details]
> > The final patch
> >
> > This is the final patch.
>
> This patch applies code tra
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16097|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16096|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
--- Comment #26 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #25)
> Created attachment 16096 [details]
> A patch to add .pushuniqsect
>
> Please retry with .pushuniqsect.
Jan proposed to use --sectname-subst. Does it work for you?
--
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16095|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16087|0 |1
is obsolete|
2025 at 07:15:14AM +, hjl.tools at gmail dot com
> > > wrote:
> > > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
> > > >
> > > > --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
> > > > (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #7)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32967
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32967
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
CC: sam at gentoo dot org
Target Milestone: ---
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr21479]$ cat a.c
extern void foo1(void);
void foo2(void) { foo1(); }
void foo3(void) {}
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16090|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16089|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.45
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16088|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #5)
> > > When compiler sees a hidden undefined symbol, it assumes that
> > > it is defined somewhere else and it isn't an ABS symbo
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #18)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #15)
> > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > > > Created attachment 16086 [de
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #5)
> > When compiler sees a hidden undefined symbol, it assumes that
> > it is defined somewhere else and it isn't an ABS symbol. As
> > the result, you won't get 0x2a.
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16086|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #15)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #14)
> > Created attachment 16086 [details]
> > A new patch
> >
> > Please use this one.
>
> I tested the latest patch here togeth
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32443
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #3)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #0)
> > > $ grep . exe.c lib.c lib.lds
> > > exe.c:extern void lib_func(void);
> > >
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16084|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #12)
> Hi H.J.,
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 07:15:14AM +, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_b
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #7)
> > > And, the GCC version I used is 14.2.0, which will generate per function
> > >
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16083|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #7)
> And, the GCC version I used is 14.2.0, which will generate per function
> section of "__patchable_function_entries". Thanks!
Now, the question is if GCC should generat
||2025-05-13
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 16082
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16082&action=edit
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #2)
> Thanks H.J. for the comments!
>
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> > (In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #0)
> > >
> > > If all above is correct, could we cons
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.45
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16082|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32961
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Zhiyuan Lv from comment #0)
>
> If all above is correct, could we consider below two options?
>
> 1. Add a new type of ".pushsection", say, ".pushnewsection", which will
> always create a new secti
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25749
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||32443
Referenced Bugs:
https://sourceware
||25749
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed||2025-05-10
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Stephen Kell from comment #0)
> Crea
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32809
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
Also fixed on 2.43 and 2.44 branches.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #13)
> For the non-fat case, we get:
>
> a.c
> ```
> extern void foo1(void);
> void foo2(void) { foo1(); }
> void foo3(void) {}
> ```
>
> b.c:
> ```
> extern void foo2(void
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16068|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16067|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16066|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16065|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.45
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16064|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21479
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32927
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32927
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 16060
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16060&action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32927
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32896
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
This is the current patch:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2025-April/140767.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32809
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fche at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6 from
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32926
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32896
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #14)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #12)
> > Created attachment 16054 [details]
> > A patch
> >
> > Please try this one on the current master branch.
>
> It se
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32896
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16054|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32896
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #16053|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32896
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #10)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> > > > (In reply to Matt
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32896
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #8)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #5)
> > > I think that this proposed patch could allow putting the PT_TLS s
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32896
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Matthew Malcomson from comment #5)
> I think that this proposed patch could allow putting the PT_TLS segment
> offset past the end of the file (that I think was a problem in
> https://sourceware.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32809
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.45
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32896
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #3)
> HJ's patch looks good except that the new test fails for me..
What is your target?
> Also the comment needs tweaking. I'd suggest something like:
>
>
|WAITING
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Last reconfirmed||2025-04-27
Version|unspecified |2.45 (HEAD)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32896
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 16053
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16053&action=edit
A patch
Please try this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2025-April/140473.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #0)
> Hi!
>
> Since ...
>
> commit 2707d55e539ef323dd14a1293e762bf3d9739ee7
> Author: Michael Matz
> Date: Mon Mar 31 15:57:08 2025 +0200
>
> [lto] Fix symlookup in
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||32854
Referenced Bugs:
https://sourceware
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32854
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||32846
Referenced Bugs:
https://sourceware
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32854
Bug 32854 depends on bug 32846, which changed state.
Bug 32846 Summary: LTO link failures in various packages since
2707d55e539ef323dd14a1293e762bf3d9739ee7
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
What|Removed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32854
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32860
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Definition of GCC builtin |Definition of GCC builtin
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 lto-6]$ cat pr31482a.c
#include
int
main()
{
abort ();
return 0;
}
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 lto-6]$ cat pr31482c.c
#include
#include
void
abort (void
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32860
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Definition in the archive |Definition of GCC builtin
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
when a shared library defines 'foo@@FOO' (default version),
a static archive defines 'foo', the shared lib c
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32846
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #7)
> Ultimately first_hash was introduced for what really is a bug in the compiler
> (pr31482, where the LTO .o files don't contain a reference to abort in their
> symbol
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32813
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andreas Abel from comment #2)
> Yes, it causes issues in
> https://github.com/andreas-abel/nanoBench/tree/master/tools/cpuBench, which
> is the code that generates the benchmarks that are behind
> h
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32779
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32816
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Aliaksey Kandratsenka from comment #2)
> As noted above, I have tried --no-as-needed. And yes it kinda "works", but
> it is not great.
>
> There several imperfections with --no-as-needed:
>
> *)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32813
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andreas Abel from comment #5)
> If it is not a bug, but a conscious choice to prefer the form without the
> REX prefix to optimize the instruction size, I would expect that
> `{nooptimize} LSL RCX,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
||2025-03-23
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Does the current behavior cause any issues in actual codes?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32816
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Ever confirmed|0
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||haochen.jiang at intel dot com
Ever con
|NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2025-March/140085.html
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32813
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andreas Abel from comment #4)
> Yes, I could add workarounds to my code, but it would be preferable if this
> could be fixed at the source. Earlier versions of gas correctly added the
> REX prefix,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #4)
> Looks good to me thanks.
>
> Except should there be an error if the immediate exceeds imm8 or imm16?
It is a hint, not a hard requirement.
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32811
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32807
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32787
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32787
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |2.45
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32787
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Fixed for 2.45 so far.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32787
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
y: P2
Component: gprof
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
When binutils is compiled without -g, I got
-- expected
+++ actual
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
-25 f1 2000
-31 f2 1000
-40 f3 1
+0 f1 2000
+0 f2 1000
+0 f3 1
FAIL
m
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
When binutils is configured with
$ CC="gcc" CXX="g++" CFLAGS="-O2 -g -flto" CXXFLAGS="-O2 -g -flto"
.../configure
I got
/export/
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32768
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Target Milestone|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32768
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #0)
> Disassembly of f1 and f2 shows the expected calls are there, it's just
> that gprof miscategorises the f2->f1 call as f1->f1.
>
> 00401196 :
> 401196:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32768
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32768
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu ---
Which compiler was used?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1 - 100 of 2368 matches
Mail list logo
