https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25295
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|marxin.liska at gmail dot com |
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25295
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25295
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin.liska at gmail dot com
: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: marxin.liska at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I have a few comments about debuginfod support:
1) it's not easy to identify which options do support debug
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25640
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> > > Created attachment 12355 [details]
> > > Pass -flto-partition=none to GCC
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25640
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> Created attachment 12355 [details]
> Pass -flto-partition=none to GCC
The patch does not work, very likely due to:
lto-wrapper.c:608:
604 /* Drop argum
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25640
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> Created attachment 12355 [details]
> Pass -flto-partition=none to GCC
This seems right to me.
Anyway, can't we built on something like:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitw
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25640
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
Heh. Then we should use -flto-partition=none or one.
Anyway, to be honest, I'm still not fully convinced about the selected approach
(of using LTO for nm). There's still a possibility to extend lto plugin
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25640
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--
You are
2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: marxin.liska at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 12352
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12352&action=edit
test-case
Using latest release I s
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, I used the updated binutils to build a LTO project.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
I can confirm the patch works.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #65 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Please open a new bug.
Sure:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25584
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: marxin.liska at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
It's a follow up of PR25355:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355#c63
--
You are receiving
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #63 from Martin Liška ---
I have one more question about the lto-wrapper usage: is there any reason why
'ar' and 'ranlib' also use it? It makes building of some packages significantly
slower.
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #60 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #59)
> Fixed on master branch.
Good. Please pull the revision to the 2.34 branch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #57 from Martin Liška ---
> Try the latest one.
I can confirm it works.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #54 from Martin Liška ---
However, I see one another segfault:
$ cat 1.i
int a;
$ cat 2.i
[empty file]
$ gcc -flto=auto -O2 -fPIC 1.i -c
$ gcc -flto=auto -O2 -fPIC 2.i -c
$ ar cru x.a 1.o 2.o
$ ranlib x.a
Segmentation fault (core
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #53 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #52)
> Created attachment 12297 [details]
> A new patch
The patch works for me! Thank you.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #49 from Martin Liška ---
If I revert backport of 99845b3b77ed1248b6fb94707f88868bde358ccc, then it's
fine.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #40 from Martin Liška ---
I will have to start using AR=gcc-ar, ...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #39 from Martin Liška ---
>
> What is wrong to use the matching lto-wrapper for the plugin being used?
It's probably fine. I'm just wondering how to use a locally install GCC to
cooperate fine with binutils.
--
You are receivin
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #37 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Which liblto_plugin.so did nm load? Which liblto_plugin.so should nm load?
It loads the following plugin:
stat("/usr/bin/../lib64/bfd-plugins", 0x7fffd980) = -1 ENOENT (No such file
or directory
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #34 from Martin Liška ---
I have one more question. It's a quite common case for me that that I do
testing of the built GCC :
$ export PATH=/home/marxin/bin/gcc/bin/:$PATH && export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/marxin/bin/gcc/lib64/:$LD_
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #31 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #30)
> Created attachment 12287 [details]
> Try this
I can confirm that patch works.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #27 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Works for me on master branch. Please try master branch to see if
> it works for you.
It looks one needs a system setup to have multiple plug-in which cause that:
$ ls /usr/bin/../bin/../lib/bfd-pl
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #28 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 12286
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12286&action=edit
libiberty archive
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #24 from Martin Liška ---
Ok, I've got one another problem with the 2 commits
(de66c68d899600286b0d054508a2ed7beee64870 and
39f2b43be6ccc3acb29ab84dee48180b6a8fcba5) applied on top of the bintuils 2.34
release. I built a openSUSE p
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
>
> It looks like you were using one of my old patches. Line 860 in plugin.c
> doesn't do anything on master branch.
You are right, sorry for the noise.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #20 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 12283
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12283&action=edit
valgrind log file
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Thank you H.J. I can confirm the patch works:
Before:
$ cat x.c
int nm_test_var;
int nm_test_var2 = 1234;
extern int foo (void);
int
main ()
{
return foo ();
}
$ gcc-9 -fno-common x.c -c -flto && nm
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška ---
>
> Amusingly, "nm" is also busted on objects using this trick with -flto,
> showing a_ as an undefined symbol which is not the case. But that
> shouldn't cause any issue for libtool's uses of nm.
He
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bfriesen at simple dot
dallas.tx.u
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25355
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Nick Bowler from comment #2)
> Summary of the issue in libtool:
>
> libtool needs to produce C declarations for arbitrary symbols based on nm
> output, in order to implement various features s
ty: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: marxin.liska at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
As being discussed here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2020-01/msg00022.html
nm reports misl
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24123
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin.liska at gmail dot com
--
You
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24912
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: marxin.liska at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Copy from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91376:
've just tried Solaris/SPARC and x86 bootstraps with gas and gld from binutils
master. Doi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24768
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Should be implemented now. Let's keep this issue to remove later the usage of
__gnu_lto_slim.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24768
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
>
> The layout of this struct depends on the host compiler. Won't that cause
> problems in object file portability?
You are right, I will change streaming of the structure to be always LE in a
ELF file.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24768
--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 11883
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11883&action=edit
Patch candidate
I would appreciate feedback about the patch before I'll send it to the mailing
list.
--
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24768
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com,
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: binutils
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: marxin.liska at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Recently I've added a new LTO section that is emitted by GCC:
.gnu.lto_.lto.*. Purpose of the section
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24464
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com,
: unspecified
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: gas
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: marxin.liska at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Using rx cross gas I see:
$ cat pr90045.s
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24434
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > Fixed in bintuils with:
> >
> > commit 629cfaf1b0fbb32a985607c774bd8e7870b9fa94 (HEAD, refs/bisect/bad)
> > Author
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24434
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jbeulich at novell dot com
--
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24434
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin.liska at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #26 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #25)
> Created attachment 11681 [details]
> A patch
>
> Please try this.
Good job H.J. I can confirm it works for a simple test-case and I see:
737 54db81cc670131ad PREV
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #23 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #22)
> Works for me with binutils 2.32:
>
Have you tried to run the binary with wine?
You'll probably see something like:
wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0x
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #21 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #20)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #19)
> > H.J. : Can you please help me how to find a place which makes a real
> > decision about which BFD (object) will be u
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #19 from Martin Liška ---
H.J. : Can you please help me how to find a place which makes a real decision
about which BFD (object) will be used for each symbol?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #18 from Martin Liška ---
> I meant it must be PREVAILING_DEF and can't be PREVAILING_DEF_IRONLY.
Yes, PREVAILING_DEF would be fine as well for COFF.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #15 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, both return:
...
262 545ca41eb4de6c9c PREVAILING_DEF _ZNKSt5ctypeIcE8do_widenEc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
>
> What do ELF linkers (gold and bfd) get?
We get:
(gdb) p owner_sec->owner->filename
$5 = 0x69ae80 "main.o (symbol from plugin)"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
I've got a patch candidate that can solve it:
diff --git a/bfd/coffgen.c b/bfd/coffgen.c
index 309e1249ac..1d200b066b 100644
--- a/bfd/coffgen.c
+++ b/bfd/coffgen.c
@@ -2678,9 +2678,9 @@ _bfd_coff_section
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
> I don't understand much the details but I think what H.J. Lu was trying to
> say is that maybe was fixed for ELF but not for PE/COFF so to have a look at
> the mentioned PRs.
> I cannot suggest any of th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eliz at gnu dot org
--
You are receiv
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eliz at gnu dot org
--
You are receiv
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> > >
> > > Not regression. They are LTO bug fixes.
> >
> > Can you be please more concrete?
>
> Check PR 23958, PR 238
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.korn.cygwin at gmail dot
com,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> > > Does it happen on Linux?
> >
> > No, it's specific to w64-mingw32 target.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1)
> Does it happen on Linux?
No, it's specific to w64-mingw32 target. I'm testing that on Linux where I use
cross compiler + wine:
$ wine --version
wine-4.1
--
You ar
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|ld discard a symbol with|ld discards a symbol with
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24267
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--
You are re
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: marxin.liska at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
This is follow up of:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81879
$ cat simpler.ii
namespace std {
template struct char_traits;
template > cl
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24165
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin.liska at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15660
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 7476
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7476&action=edit
ld args and liblto plugin
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15660
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
There's my out/Release build folder:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pisUJ80pO1UzFGNGJhaW1xbVE/edit?usp=sha
ring
It's ~3.4GB tar with bzip2 (~6GB extracted).
ld --version:
GNU gold (GNU Binut
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15660
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
I'll try to link it without -flto, but I used -fno-fat-lto-objects. It will
take me some time to recompile chromium.
Weird is that ld.bfd is able to link the binary with -flto (aside gcc relat
ed
err
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15660
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
I did so, thin library was created, but linker is still complaining about f
ile
descriptors:
g++ -Wl,-z,now -Wl,-z,relro -pthread -Wl,-z,noexecstack -fPIC -pie -L. -flt
o=9
-fno-fat-lto-objects -O2 -
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15660
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška ---
ulimit -n
1024
I tried same command line without --start-group/--end-group, but didn't hel
p.
Next step was to create one large archive, so:
ar r [list of all *.a] /tmp/lib.a
g++ -Wl,-z,now -
onent: gold
Assignee: ian at airs dot com
Reporter: marxin.liska at gmail dot com
CC: ccoutant at google dot com
I've encountered similar bug to:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10708 during linking of chromium
binary.
ld --version
GNU gold (GN
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15516
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WORK
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15516
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 7054
--> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7054&action=edit
Libreoffice saxparser object files
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list f
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15516
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
So the bug is really present in binutils trunk (May 24 2013).
ld --version:
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.52.20130524
gcc --version:
gcc (GCC) 4.9.0 20130517 (experimental)
Compilation error:
S=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/"; />
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D15516#c8";>Comme=
nt # 8
on http
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15516
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin.liska at gmail dot
84 matches
Mail list logo
