https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #22 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=80f3ac5d61a5d01d7cf951de0e24ecdc71c545cb
commit 80f3ac5d61a5d01d7cf951de0e24ecd
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||felix-glibc at fefe dot de
--- Comment #21
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #20 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The binutils-2_31-branch branch has been updated by H.J. Lu
:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=28a27bdbb9500797e6767f80c8128b09112aeed5
commit 28a27bdbb9500797e
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #19 from Evangelos Foutras ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18)
> (In reply to Evangelos Foutras from comment #16)
> > The test case from comment #14 is still reproducible for me with both
> > binutils master (1dc9e2d6) and b
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #18 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Evangelos Foutras from comment #16)
> The test case from comment #14 is still reproducible for me with both
> binutils master (1dc9e2d6) and binutils-2_31-branch (6ee91b1e). No change at
> all in t
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #17 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=ab9e342807d132182892de1be1a92d6e91a5c1da
commit ab9e342807d132182892de1be1a92d6
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #16 from Evangelos Foutras ---
The test case from comment #14 is still reproducible for me with both binutils
master (1dc9e2d6) and binutils-2_31-branch (6ee91b1e). No change at all in the
resulting binary, compared to just the pat
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #14)
> > @Szabolcs: If you rebuild gcc-8 on Debian testing with "--enable-cet=auto"
> > added to CONFARGS in debian/rules2, then you should be able to reproduce the
> > musl-gcc cr
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #14 from nsz at port70 dot net ---
> @Szabolcs: If you rebuild gcc-8 on Debian testing with "--enable-cet=auto"
> added to CONFARGS in debian/rules2, then you should be able to reproduce the
> musl-gcc crash (after removing the --bu
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #13 from Evangelos Foutras ---
Created attachment 11177
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11177&action=edit
libgcc-8-dev rebuilt with --enable-cet=auto (for Debian testing)
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Evangelos Foutras from comment #11)
>
> Does the above indicate that the fix to binutils needs to be tweaked?
>
Please provide a small and host-independent testcase.
--
You are receiving this
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #11 from Evangelos Foutras ---
Created attachment 11174
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11174&action=edit
Test case with Arch's and Debian's GCC-provided crt{begin,end}.o
(In reply to nsz from comment #10)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #10 from nsz at port70 dot net ---
* evangelos at foutrelis dot com
[2018-08-10 02:14:57 +]:
> I also checked on Debian testing and the musl-gcc command produces a working
> binary there (even after removing the --build-id work
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #9 from Evangelos Foutras ---
(In reply to nsz from comment #8)
> it works for me, please post the readelf -aW ./a.out somewhere (e.g. musl
> list)
https://paste.xinu.at/igNNdz/ -- but as mentioned below, it's the same as
unpatche
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #8 from nsz at port70 dot net ---
* evangelos at foutrelis dot com
[2018-08-09 07:37:19 +]:
> @Szabolcs, Rich: Is the musl-gcc issue fixed for you guys? [1]
>
> I'm still getting a segfault with current binutils master (6404ab
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
Evangelos Foutras changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||evangelos at foutrelis dot com
--
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The binutils-2_31-branch branch has been updated by H.J. Lu
:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=6737a6b34f4823deb7142f27b4074831a37ac1e1
commit 6737a6b34f4823deb7
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #4 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu :
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=241e64e3b42cd9eba514b8e0ad2ef39a337f10a5
commit 241e64e3b42cd9eba514b8e0ad2ef39a
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #3 from Rich Felker ---
I don't object to the patch as-is, but wouldn't it make more sense to make the
program headers a first-class section with attribute alloc, so that they're
semantically forced to be visible at runtime rather
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
A patch is posted at
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2018-07/msg00321.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
bug-bi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fweimer at redhat dot com
--
You ar
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23428
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org |hjl.tools at gmail dot
com
Target
23 matches
Mail list logo
