[Bug ld/2721] New: --as-needed vs. DT_NEEDED undef symbols checks

2006-06-01 Thread jakub at redhat dot com
echo 'int foo1;' | gcc -shared -fpic -o /usr/lib/libfoo.so -xc - -xnone -Wl,-soname,libfoo.so echo 'int foo1; int foo2;' | gcc -shared -fpic -o libfoo.so -xc - -xnone -Wl,-soname,libfoo.so echo 'int foo (void) { extern int foo2; return foo2; }' | gcc -shared -fpic -o libbar.so -xc - -xnone ./libfoo

[Bug ld/2721] --as-needed vs. DT_NEEDED undef symbols checks

2006-06-01 Thread jakub at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2006-06-01 13:40 --- Oops, actually, swap the order of libfoo.so and libbar.so on the last command line and then it is a regression from older binutils (e.g. 2.16.91.0.6 20060212). echo 'int foo1;' | gcc -shared -fpic -o /usr/lib/lib

[Bug ld/2721] --as-needed vs. DT_NEEDED undef symbols checks

2006-06-01 Thread jakub at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2006-06-01 15:34 --- http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2006-06/msg9.html -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2721 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or ar

Re: BFD internal error while compiling lapack

2006-06-01 Thread Glen W. Mabey
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:31:33AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:45:55PM -0500, Glen W. Mabey wrote: > > I am using binutils version 2.16.1cvs20060413-1 from debian sarge, and > > Hmm, I wonder what debian have done to binutils? You probably should > report this problem to

[Bug ld/2723] New: ld puts unused section symbols in symbol table

2006-06-01 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
This patch http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-05/msg00458.html removes unused section symbols from symbol table. Shouldn't ld try not to put them in symbol table in the first place? -- Summary: ld puts unused section symbols in symbol table Product: binutils

[Bug ld/2723] ld puts unused section symbols in symbol table

2006-06-01 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2006-06-01 16:51 --- Created an attachment (id=1061) --> (http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1061&action=view) A testcase I got [EMAIL PROTECTED] symtab-1]$ make as -o foo.o foo.s ./ld -o foo foo.o ./objcopy foo bar read

[Bug gas/2724] New: GAS segmentation fault when target=coff and enabled-target=elf

2006-06-01 Thread ed dot reed at aesec dot com
When binutils is configured with --target=i386-aesec-coff --enabled-target=i386-elf (or i586-linux or variations thereon), and you run "gas/as-new -v" you get the version string, followed by a segmentation fault Configuration command: ../binutils-2.16.1/configure --target=i386-coff --enable-targe

[Bug ld/1485] --enable-targets=all doesn't work for 64bit target

2006-06-01 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2006-06-01 19:25 --- It is fixed now. -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug ld/2723] ld puts unused section symbols in symbol table

2006-06-01 Thread amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-06-02 00:39 --- http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils-cvs/2006-06/msg9.html -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug gas/2724] GAS segmentation fault when target=coff and enabled-target=elf

2006-06-01 Thread amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2006-06-02 00:43 --- Fixed on mainline 2006-05-03 -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW