https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
--- Comment #9 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #8)
> sysdeps/arm/dl-machine.h:
>
> elf_machine_load_address (void)
>extern Elf32_Addr internal_function __dl_start (void *) asm ("_dl_start");
>Elf32_Addr got_ad
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
--- Comment #8 from Jiong Wang ---
sysdeps/arm/dl-machine.h:
elf_machine_load_address (void)
extern Elf32_Addr internal_function __dl_start (void *) asm ("_dl_start");
Elf32_Addr got_addr = (Elf32_Addr) &__dl_start;
Elf32_Addr pcrel_
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
--- Comment #7 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #6)
> will do some analysis as well.
The difference between the working and broken ld.so on arm is
0fa0 <_dl_start>:
@@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@
fb6: 6338
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
--- Comment #6 from Jiong Wang ---
ARM ld.so has broken since the following commit, revert it on 2.29 branch make
ld.so works again on arm-linux-gnueabihf
commit 52a86f843b6dee1de9977293da9786649b146b05
Author: Nick Clifton
Date: Mon May 1
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |jiwang at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64*|aarch64-linux-gnu,
|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
--- Comment #3 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #2)
> that seems to work. However a link error for ld.so is not seen on
> arm-linux-gnueabihf.
I just reproduced the ARM segment fault, it looks like another issue wh
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64*
--
You are receiving this mail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21725
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
bug-binutils@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21532
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21532
--- Comment #9 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #8)
> Temporarily reopen this bug as the fix was reverted because it will leak
> some PC-relative relocations in while PC-relative support on copy relocation
> elimination
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21532
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21532
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21532
--- Comment #5 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #3)
> Hi Jiong,
>
> Thanks for taking a look at this.
>
> >Looks like AArch64 could avoid emiting COPY relocation if it's a
> > relocation
> > against writable
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21532
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |jiwang at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21532
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
Hi Nick,
Looks like AArch64 could avoid emiting COPY relocation if it's a relocation
against writable section. We could adopt similar code from
elf_x86_64_adjust_dynamic_symbol or ppc64_elf_adjust_dynamic_
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21532
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21099
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #1)
> In general, strip cannot alter loaded sections, so it should not touch
> .dynsym. That means that removing sections, whether by using strip or
> objcopy, may break
|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2017-02-17
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|2.26|2.29 (HEAD)
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |jiwang at gcc dot
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20402
--- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang ---
It seems this to be a generic ld.bfd issue? I see there is relocations
generated on x86-64 as well, while I think linker should fully resolve these
relocation during static linking as they are absolute value
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20402
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||aarch64*, x86-64
Summary|ld.b
: minor
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Can be reproduced by two commands:
===
ld --verbose | tac | sed '/^===/d' | sed '/using internal li
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20995
--- Comment #15 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #14)
> If you define COMMONPAGESIZE, yes, you may waste up to COMMONPAGESIZE extra
> on disk in order to *save* memory pages.
>
> To see this, imagine a system where mem
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20995
--- Comment #13 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #12)
> (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #11)
> > I deliberately left the arm FAILs showing. They are telling you that -z
> > relro does not wotk on those target vari
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20995
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20868
--- Comment #3 from Jiong Wang ---
Hi Yury,
Some quick thoughts:
>
> But in executalbe binary ld relaxes tls access with direct address
> calculation:
> 279 register unsigned long __result asm ("w0");
> 280 asm volatile ("
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20868
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Jiong Wang from comment #1)
> I investigate this.
-> I will investigate this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
||2016-11-25
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |jiwang at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jiong Wang ---
I investigate this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20737
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20737
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20737
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20666
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20667
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed||2016-10-05
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|2.26|2.28 (HEAD)
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |jiwang at gcc dot
||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
Version|2.26|2.28 (HEAD)
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |jiwang at gcc dot
gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jiong Wang ---
I will investigate this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20553
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Version|2.26
||2016-09-28
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |jiwang at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Jiong Wang ---
Posted a patch here
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20402
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19368
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19368
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Jiong Wang
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19368
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|DUPLICATE
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19188
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13302
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at debian dot org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19368
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19368
--- Comment #3 from Jiong Wang ---
This is caused by the following commit which turn on
elf_backend_extern_protected_data.
commit b68a20d6675f1360ea4db50a9835c073675b9889
Author: Szabolcs Nagy
Date: Mon Jul 27 11:45:27 2015 +0100
[ARM] Fix
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19368
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19188
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this mail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19188
--- Comment #3 from Jiong Wang ---
caused by we always call tpoff_base when we need to do tls relaxation which is
wrong. tpoff_base shouldn't be called if there is
no tls object defined in the input section. it's only valid when we are
doing
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19188
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18500
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18276
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18668
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18692
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18692
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18668
--- Comment #10 from Jiong Wang ---
the patch fix OpenLoop builds is sent out for review.
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2015-07/msg00137.html
NOTE, it address the OpenLoops issue only which is root cause of what David run
into.
A sep
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18668
--- Comment #9 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to David Abdurachmanov from comment #8)
> Could you point to GCC PR you mentioned? I just want to x-check why my
> toolchain build works.
the gcc fix is
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18668
--- Comment #7 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to David Abdurachmanov from comment #6)
> My last test was with GCC 4.9.3, that did not ICE during OpenLoops
> compilation.
>
> Thanks for looking into this!
gcc 4.9.3 still ICE, but I have applie
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18668
--- Comment #5 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to David Abdurachmanov from comment #4)
> I all process libraries except one in OpenLoops, that's enough to trigger
> the issue.
>
> You can get it here (4.7M):
> http://davidlt.web.cern.ch/davidlt
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18668
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this mail
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18668
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
>
> Looking at AArch64 backend in aarch64_type_of_stub there is a check:
>
> 2287 if ((r_type == AARCH64_R (CALL26) || r_type == AARCH64_R (JUMP26))
> 2288 && (branch_offset > AARCH64_MAX_FWD_BRANCH
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18668
--- Comment #1 from Jiong Wang ---
thanks for reporting this, will double check the status
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-binutils mailing list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18668
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |jiwang at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17415
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18270
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18276
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18270
--- Comment #4 from Jiong Wang ---
patch for review https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2015-04/msg00302.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-bin
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18270
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|2.25|2.26 (HEAD)
--
You are receiving this m
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18270
--- Comment #3 from Jiong Wang ---
AArch64 have counted the got entry in check_relocs for local symbol, while we
haven't do any thing during entry allocation, and when doing the final
relocation in elfNN_aarch64_final_link_relocate, we only up
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18270
--- Comment #2 from Jiong Wang ---
Reproduced.
And after a quick investigation I believe the root cause is exactly what
Richard Henderson has explained at
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2014-07/msg00155.html
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18270
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17615
--- Comment #17 from Jiong Wang ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #16)
> Fixed by git commit c4621b33
thanks very much for fixing this !
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17615
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17615
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|binutils|ld
Version|2.24
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17615
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|aarch64-none-linux-gnu |aarch64-none-linux-gnu,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17615
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Jiong Wang
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17615
--- Comment #5 from Jiong Wang ---
Hi Dimitry,
Thanks for reporting this.
A quick look at your attachment shows libiprouteutil.so and libnetlink.so are
required to reproduce this issue, while I haven't found them in your
attachment.
C
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17615
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17415
Jiong Wang changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jiwang at gcc dot gnu.org
80 matches
Mail list logo
