[Bug ld/5149] PT_GNU_RELRO having PF_R|PF_E even when no section in it needs exec is a ld bug

2007-10-23 Thread oliver at linux-kernel dot at
--- Additional Comments From oliver at linux-kernel dot at 2007-10-23 07:48 --- > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-10/msg00308.html Can you attach the patch here as well in a 'downloadable' format? -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5149 --- You are receivi

[Bug ld/5149] PT_GNU_RELRO having PF_R|PF_E even when no section in it needs exec is a ld bug

2007-10-23 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-23 13:28 --- (In reply to comment #20) > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-10/msg00308.html > > Can you attach the patch here as well in a 'downloadable' format? You can use raw text: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/get-raw

[Bug ld/5149] PT_GNU_RELRO having PF_R|PF_E even when no section in it needs exec is a ld bug

2007-10-23 Thread oliver at linux-kernel dot at
--- Additional Comments From oliver at linux-kernel dot at 2007-10-23 14:25 --- I rebuilt binutils with your patch and elfutils still complains: [EMAIL PROTECTED] elfutils-0.130]$ eu-readelf -Sl libelf/libelf.so There are 37 section headers, starting at offset 0xd0ad0: Section Headers:

[Bug ld/5149] PT_GNU_RELRO having PF_R|PF_E even when no section in it needs exec is a ld bug

2007-10-23 Thread oliver at linux-kernel dot at
--- Additional Comments From oliver at linux-kernel dot at 2007-10-23 14:27 --- Message spotted by elfutils is still the same of course: loadable segment GNU_RELRO applies to is executable *** failure in ../libelf/libelf.so -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5149

[Bug ld/5149] PT_GNU_RELRO having PF_R|PF_E even when no section in it needs exec is a ld bug

2007-10-23 Thread hjl at lucon dot org
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2007-10-23 14:32 --- (In reply to comment #23) > Message spotted by elfutils is still the same of course: > loadable segment GNU_RELRO applies to is executable > *** failure in ../libelf/libelf.so What is wrong with GNU_RELRO? It could be

[Bug ld/5149] PT_GNU_RELRO having PF_R|PF_E even when no section in it needs exec is a ld bug

2007-10-23 Thread oliver at linux-kernel dot at
--- Additional Comments From oliver at linux-kernel dot at 2007-10-23 15:01 --- > What is wrong with GNU_RELRO? It could be an elfutils bug. If this looks fine for you then OK. I'll ask elfutils guys then. I just wanted to ask you if it looks OK for you, so I don't bug elfutils for noth

[Bug ld/5206] man page of ld is not correct.

2007-10-23 Thread drow at sources dot redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From drow at sources dot redhat dot com 2007-10-24 02:13 --- The documentation is correct. If you need a comma, that's probably because you're using gcc -Wl,-z. -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug binutils/5214] New: large file support incomplete

2007-10-23 Thread amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
A 32-bit hosted binutils for a 64-bit target ought to support large files (ie. > 4G in size). Building with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 helps somewhat but many places in bfd use "long" for sizes. eg. bfd_get_reloc_upper_bound. -- Summary: large file support incomplete Product:

[Bug ld/5206] man page of ld is not correct.

2007-10-23 Thread mohringarmin at hotmail dot de
--- Additional Comments From mohringarmin at hotmail dot de 2007-10-24 05:49 --- Really? If I invoke the linker ld, I have to use -Wl,-z,now. The documentation is not correct in this case. -- What|Removed |Added -

[Bug ld/5206] man page of ld is not correct.

2007-10-23 Thread amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
--- Additional Comments From amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2007-10-24 06:00 --- Yes, truly. Please read what Daniel wrote. You are not invoking ld directly. -- What|Removed |Added --