https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30144
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 16041
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16041&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Pali,
The secret is to add a new emulation function. These functions are target
spec
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30144
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Pali Rohár from comment #3)
> > Looking into this, it is actually quite hard to predict the mangling of the
> > entry symbol name.
>
> Nick, cannot be 32-bit x86 PE ld easily extended in this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32732
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
OK, well such a change would certainly be fine with me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32732
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Right - so first of all I wish to point out that although I did create the
patch that is causing all of these problems, I am not a PE file format expert.
So it is entirely likely that I made mistakes. And
|REOPENED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi H.J.
The test for this PR is failing for a whole lot of different targets.
For example:
extra regexps in ld-elf/pr25237.d starting with "^ +LOAD
|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Lessmann,
I am very sorry. This is a known issue with objcopy and the BFD library
- it does not support the generation of version 2 AArch64 Mach-O
|--- |WONTFIX
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Ofek,
Thanks for reporting this problem. Unfortunately the issue is with the
demangler code in the libiberty library - a library that is part of gcc
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32459
--- Comment #10 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> Created attachment 15975 [details]
> A patch
Hi H.J.
Well this is a nice idea, but it also raises the issue I pointed out in
comment #1. Code like this makes th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32459
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32459
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
OK, so I have checked in a simplified version of the patch which only issues an
information message when RELR relocs are present and other relocs are not. It
also does not change the behaviour when using -
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32644
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3)
> Similar to PR32643, shouldn't the error message that's clearly there have
> prevented the followup code from running, even in presence of -w? I.e.
> like fixed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32671
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
I have no objections to changing the linker's default behaviour - as long as
the choice can be overridden by a configure time option so that distributions
that want the old behaviour can still obtain it.
-
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32647
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|1
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32644
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32644
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32643
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
|RESOLVED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Fixed.
One of the commits to resolve your other bug reports today has also resolved
this one. :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32643
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Last
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32641
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32640
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32638
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32641
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
|1
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Last reconfirmed||2025-02-05
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32636
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580
--- Comment #16 from Nick Clifton ---
OK, I am baffled. The missing text seems to have nothing to do with
function-like invocations either inside or outside here blocks. Could there be
two ksh bugs ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 15903
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15903&action=edit
Another proposed patch
Hi Rainer,
Please could you try out this alternative patch and let
me know if
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580
--- Comment #13 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> But the others are apparently not triggering the ksh bug.
How strange. But if not ending a here block with a function-like invocation is
the solution then
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580
--- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #10)
> But of course, if it is at the end of the here doc anyway, it could also be
> moved out and called as a regular command after it.
True - but there are other
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32467
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to 孙文举 from comment #6)
> CVE-2024-57360 assigned
Note - the binutils/SECURITY.txt document makes it clear that bugs in
inspection tools (such as nm) are not considered to be security issues and
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32580
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clif
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32459
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 15874
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15874&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Maskray,
OK, what do you think of this patch ?
With the patch applied, if you try
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32435
--- Comment #26 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #22)
> (In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #20)
> > Plus, if I have read Jan's v2 patch correctly, sections in object files will
> > still be aligned, but just alig
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32435
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Last reconfirmed||2024-12-20
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #5)
> Wait a bloody minute!
>
>
> bfd:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32463
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #2)
> I probably forgot to mention the
> most important thing. If you change:
>
> TTT = .;
> _LGROUP = TTT;
>
> into:
> _LGROUP = .;
>
> then suddenly bfg linker gi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32459
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32463
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32391
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32467
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32464
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Yes, it was my fault.
I was trying to change the Product for 32466 and for some reason bugzilla moved
to this PR without making it clear that I was no longer editing the bug that I
thought I was editing.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32467
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
The problem is the one of the symbols contains an @ character:
_ZN1@SerialFOTBuilder12endExtensionERKN10FOTBuilder24CompoundExtensionFlowObjE
Because nm is being run with the --without-symbol-versions o
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32467
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32391
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 15820
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15820&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Regis,
OK, please could you try out this patch and let me know what you think ?
Chee
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32391
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32391
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Regis Duchesne from comment #2)
Hi Régis
>> I think that this is more of a lack-of-documentation issue than a bug. >
> I respectfully disagree, I'll attempt below to argument in favor of my
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Liu,
I have applied your patches.
Unfortunately the new section assignments triggered some failures in the
linker testsuite, so I have checked in an
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32391
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32254
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to rdiez-2006 from comment #4)
> Therefore, there seems to be a race condition with the install-strip target
> when using parallel builds. Generation of doc/asconfig.texi is not
> serialised prop
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32240
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32254
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to rdiez-2006 from comment #2)
> > Since the last-modified timestamp on the .info files matches
> > that on the .texi files, the build system thinks that it
> > needs to regenerate all of the doc
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32254
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32271
--- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #7)
> > My bad. The option is -Ttext-segment=... rather than --text-segment=...
> > Sorry.
>
> Wow!
> This actually works.
> So is it the same as just specifying
>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32271
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #5)
> Even if it covers some "random"
> data in a file? IMHO that's still
> a but. If it would be zero-sized
> then fine. But its not.
Can you provide a small exampl
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32271
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #3)
Hi Stas,
>> Agreed, although this is probably an enhancement rather than a bug.
>
> Having stalled PT_LOAD segment
> is most likely a bug. It probably
> refers t
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32271
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32100
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi H.J.
That makes sense. Please go ahead and apply the patch to the branch.
Cheers
Nick
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 15722
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15722&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi H.J.
How about this proposed patch instead ?
It modifies the orphan placement algo
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32100
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32211
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32219
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32211
--- Comment #14 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Dan McDonald from comment #13)
> Did this change in 2.41 include updates in the man page or other user
> documentation? If so, sorry for missing it.
Yes. It includes this change to the binu
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32211
--- Comment #12 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Dan,
Sorry, you are right, I was wrong. And now that I understand the problem I
have been able to track down the exact commit that causes this issue:
0a3137ce4c4b
Which states:
There is some inc
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32211
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32191
Bug 32191 depends on bug 32190, which changed state.
Bug 32190 Summary: [2.44 Regression] pr22393 test failures
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32190
What|Removed |Added
--
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32190
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32190
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi H.J.
Personally I think that this is a case where the test itself should be
changed. Or at least made conditional upon --rosegment not being in effect.
Or changed so that it does not complain about
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
Priority: P2
Component: ld
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: nickc at redhat dot com
Target Milestone: ---
As reported here:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2024-August/136267.html
When linking binaries with --rosegment enabled
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31954
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Hanwei,
Thanks for uploading the object files. As I suspected however, on their own
they are not enough to trigger the bug. For example a I tried test, based upon
the command line you provided, but
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31954
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Hanwei,
Would you be able to upload the cp_lto_20081125_0.o and cp_lto_20081125_1.o
object files so that we can try reproducing the problem without requiring the
installation of a clang compiler.
A
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Aapo,
Thanks for reporting this bug. It was all my fault. I changed the name of
the option from 'show' to 'locale' whilst I was
||nickc at redhat dot com
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Jaehoon Jang,
Thank you for reporting this problem. As it happens this bug has already
been fixed. If you try building the binutils from the mainline
||nickc at redhat dot com
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Kei,
This looks like
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32002
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32018
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31395
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31728
--- Comment #17 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Pali,
I am seeing new linker testsuite failures with these tests added:
FAIL: ld-pe/symbols-ordinals-hints-imports-ld
FAIL: ld-pe/symbols-ordinals-hints-imports-dlltool
Looking in the logs there
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31728
--- Comment #16 from Nick Clifton ---
No - but I am doing so now...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #21 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Rostislav Krasny from comment #20)
Hi Rostislav
(Sorry for the delay in replying - I am a bit overwhelmed at the moment).
> Ok. Then what is the reason of generating VERSION_DATE from Chan
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31953
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31953
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Sorry - I am taking a look now...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #15626|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #15596|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #16 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Rostislav Krasny from comment #13)
> The last question is: will the bfd/configure script be ran by the
> src-release.sh script only or also by a user who want to build from an
> already creat
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #15 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Rostislav Krasny from comment #14)
> (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #12)
> > That won't work with a snapshot.
>
> Is it the same to what I tried to fix in my previous message?
Yes
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31881
--- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 15616
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15616&action=edit
Proposed patch
Sorry for dropping this.
I have uploaded a revised version of your patch which:
1. Mov
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31964
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31964
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> 1) @command{uuencode} program's @code{-m} option
>I think base64 program from coreutils is more common than uuencode from
> sharutils,
>so either menti
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31964
--- Comment #4 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 15612
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15612&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Jakub,
Would you like to try out this patch ?
With it applied you can use the .bas
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31964
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |nickc at redhat dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31904
--- Comment #9 from Nick Clifton ---
(In reply to Harmen Stoppels from comment #8)
> I appreciate the patch. Would an additional
> `ld_plugin_remove_extra_library_path(const char *path)` be possible so that
>
> > This does however present a
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31728
--- Comment #7 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Pali,
Thanks for the update. I have checked in your patch.
Are we good now ? I am really not a PE expert, so I am basically relying
upon you to tell me what needs to be done, and if possible, pro
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20814
--- Comment #11 from Nick Clifton ---
Done
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31930
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31904
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #15593|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31904
--- Comment #6 from Nick Clifton ---
Oh, and it is possible that there are going to be conflicts with the
lto-plugin, which also adds library search paths. I need to look into this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31904
--- Comment #5 from Nick Clifton ---
Created attachment 15593
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15593&action=edit
Proposed patch
Hi Herman,
OK, please could you try out this patch ?
It is incomplete - I need to add
1 - 100 of 2465 matches
Mail list logo
