--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-08-28 10:47
---
What toolchain produced DivaP? I'm asking because the headers are not
consistent. If you look at section header offsets and program header offsets,
you'll see that .note.ABI-tag is part of the first PT_LOAD heade
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at gmail dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From jeff dot chua dot linux at gmail dot com
2010-08-28 11:41 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> What toolchain produced DivaP? I'm asking because the headers are not
> consistent.
I don't know. This binary comes from the vendor. There could be other binaries
that
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-28
13:32 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> What toolchain produced DivaP? I'm asking because the headers are not
> consistent. If you look at section header offsets and program header offsets,
> you'll see that .note.ABI-
--- Additional Comments From hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-08-28
13:36 ---
We can use LVM as long as we don't derive it from p_paddr
when there is a conflict since this field has unspecified
contents.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11953
--- You are rec
--- Additional Comments From amodra at gmail dot com 2010-08-28 13:43
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Can you at least tell me the vendor?
Why does strip from binutils-2.20.51.0.8 work? Because it has a different set
of bugs to the latest binutils. Sometimes a fix for one bug is wrong,
i
--- Additional Comments From jeff dot chua dot linux at gmail dot com
2010-08-28 16:13 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> Can you at least tell me the vendor?
Dialogic.
> Patch at
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-08/msg00360.html
Applied the patch. Stri
