https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #25 from John B Thiel ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #23)
> The segfaults are due to your linker script setting the value of "dot" to
> near zero with ". = 0 + SIZEOF_HEADERS;" then containing a .data output
> section wi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #24 from John B Thiel ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #22)
> (In reply to John B Thiel from comment #20)
>
> > Because FPC 2.6.4 is a legacy version, the way it produces the
> > linker script is basically "etched in st
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:43 AM Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> > If you need some exe/object files, traces, etc. let me know and I will
> try to supply.
> Yes please. If you can give me an x86_64 version of the failing
> executable I can try examining it to see what is going wrong.
> Is ther
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #2
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
John B Thiel changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #20 from John B Thiel ---
Given that the root cause is a bug in the linker script from FPC, still the
observable end-user fact is the combination of FPC 2.6.4 + binutils/LD up to
2.35 works, and has for years. It runs and produces
Hi John,
If you need some exe/object files, traces, etc. let me know and I will try to
supply.
Yes please. If you can give me an x86_64 version of the failing executable I
can try examining it to see what is going wrong.
Is there any chance that you could provide a test case that only uses
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to John B Thiel from comment #18)
> Looks like good progress, HJ Lu, though I don't follow all the internal
> specifics.
>
> Is this still under diagnosing/investigation, or is it now clear what the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #18 from John B Thiel ---
Looks like good progress, HJ Lu, though I don't follow all the internal
specifics.
Is this still under diagnosing/investigation, or is it now clear what the fix
is?
Any idea what kind of timeframe for th
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 13989
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13989&action=edit
A simpler linker script
[hjl@gnu-tgl-3 pr28903]$ make
ld -b elf64-x86-64 -m elf_x86_64 -Map myprog.map -L. lin
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #13987|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu ---
Bad executable has 2 .data sections:
Section Headers:
[Nr] Name TypeAddress OffSize ES Flg
Lk Inf Al
[ 0] NULL 00 0
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 13987
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13987&action=edit
The working link.res
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
Depends on|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu ---
commi
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #10 from John B Thiel ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #9)
> (In reply to John B Thiel from comment #8)
> > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> > > What is the last known working binutils?
> >
> > The last known good is b
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to John B Thiel from comment #8)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> > What is the last known working binutils?
>
> The last known good is binutils-2.35.2
binutils-2.35.2 doesn't work for me:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #8 from John B Thiel ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6)
> What is the last known working binutils?
The last known good is binutils-2.35.2
On Gentoo, if I switch to it, this exact test case works fine, the program
prints 'he
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
If there is no known working binutils, Free Pascal 2.6.4 never worked
with any binutils.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
What is the last known working binutils?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #5 from John B Thiel ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #4)
> (In reply to John B Thiel from comment #3)
> > Created attachment 13986 [details]
> > Complete test case demonstration package
> >
> > Here is a complete test case d
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to John B Thiel from comment #3)
> Created attachment 13986 [details]
> Complete test case demonstration package
>
> Here is a complete test case demonstration package, including
> Makefile
> my
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #3 from John B Thiel ---
Created attachment 13986
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13986&action=edit
Complete test case demonstration package
Here is a complete test case demonstration package, including
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
--- Comment #1 from John B Thiel ---
Here are some notes from my FPC bug report, pulled forward for easy reference.
I also put 2 linker maps in the other bug report, good-2.35.2 and bad-2.36.1,
let me know if you need them attached again he
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28903
Bug ID: 28903
Summary: LD producing SegFault executables with FreePascal
2.6.4, in Binutils-2.36.1 and later
Product: binutils
Version: 2.36
Status: UNCONFIRMED
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:54 AM Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> > It appears that LD in binutils versions after 2.35 is producing segfault
> executables with Free Pascal 2.6.4. You cannot build a working HelloWorld.
>
> Please could you file a bug report about this issue using the binutils
>
Hi John,
It appears that LD in binutils versions after 2.35 is producing segfault
executables with Free Pascal 2.6.4. You cannot build a working HelloWorld.
Please could you file a bug report about this issue using the binutils
bugzilla system:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cg
It appears that LD in binutils versions after 2.35 is producing segfault
executables with Free Pascal 2.6.4. You cannot build a working HelloWorld.
I have written up a full report, please see
https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/fpc/source/-/issues/39324
The Free Pascal developers believe this is
31 matches
Mail list logo
