--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2005-03-10
00:01 ---
I built a copy of binutils like so:
~/source/src/configure --target=rs6000-aix && make all-binutils
and ran objdump directly from the build directory like so:
./binutils/objdump -d foo.o
I
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |bje at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-16
23:59 ---
Patch posted:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-03/msg00226.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |bje at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |bje at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet|Freebsd i386|i386-pc-freebsd
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=997
--- You are receiving this mail becaus
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet|Freebsd i386|i386-pc-freebsd
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=998
--- You are receiving this mail becaus
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-17
00:39 ---
Hi Nick
I cannot reproduce this bug either. It's almost been a year since you responded
to the submitter and they have not responded. I propose that we close this bug
report.
Cheers
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-17
00:45 ---
Fixed with this patch:
Checking in doc/as.texinfo;
/cvs/src/src/gas/doc/as.texinfo,v <-- as.texinfo
new revision: 1.141; previous revision: 1.140
done
--
What|Remo
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |wilson at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-17
01:02 ---
Reproduced using CVS HEAD.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1008
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |bje at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=800
--- You are receiving this mail because: -
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-17
01:11 ---
There is nothing here to suggest a problem with binutils, but more likely, a
non-functional build system for the package that the user is trying to build.
No further feedback for almost 9 months
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet|opteron linux x86_64|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2335
--- You are receiving this m
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |wilson at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-17
01:50 ---
Changing to an enhancement request.
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-17
02:29 ---
These aren't pseudo-ops as such. These are part of the assembly language syntax
which is not normally documented in the GAS manual for each target. This
documentation can be obtained else
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-17
02:34 ---
HJ's patch (http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-02/msg00146.html) was
committed:
2006-02-16 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ld/2322
* elf.c (get_segment_type): N
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet|*-*-* |
GCC target triplet|*-*-* |
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1387
--
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-21
00:04 ---
Unable to reproduce; no submitter feedback in over 6 months.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
00:57 ---
The problem here is that you are using the -M option to GCC. I don't know what
this option's meaning is for Microsoft's compiler, but for GCC, it means:
`-M'
Instead of outp
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
00:59 ---
Eric, did you resolve this bug?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=760
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
02:27 ---
Can you please supply some object files that help to trigger the crash?
Just attach them to this bug report. Thanks.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2267
--- You are receiving
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||bje at sources dot redhat
||dot com
GCC host triplet|i586
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
03:05 ---
This PR looks like it can be closed now. Correct?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=960
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|GNU objcopy 2.16.1 |
GCC host triplet|SunOS 5.9 Solaris *** AND |sparc-sun-solaris2.9
|*** OSF1 V5.1 2650 a
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|hppa64-linuxinux|hppa64-linux
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1860
--- You are receiving this mail because:
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
03:58 ---
This test is passing on my system -- is it still failing on HP-UX, Dave?
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=868
--- You are receiving this mail because: -
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC build triplet|GNU AS 2.16.1 |
GCC host triplet|Windows2000 |
Version|unspecified |2.16
http:
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
04:29 ---
How are you compiling your assembly and main.c files into the executable?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2032
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
04:51 ---
Reporter never responded after more than a year.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
04:54 ---
No response from the reporter after more than a year. Anyway, Danny seems
confident that the bug is fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
05:53 ---
objdump is behaving correctly.
It sounds like you want the --file-start-context option:
`--file-start-context'
Specify that when displaying interlisted source code/disassembly
(assume
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-28
05:56 ---
No response from the reporter in over a year.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-29
02:19 ---
I don't think this patch is correct. The allocated d->data is not overrun by
the code in res_to_bin_accelerator:
put_16 (big_endian,
a->flags | (a->next != NULL
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-29
05:25 ---
The warning does not indicate a bug, as the indirect return to the setjmp site
leads to an early return -- the `info' parameter is never used.
if (setjmp (priv.bailout) != 0)
/* Error r
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-29
05:27 ---
There appear to be various AIX patchsets that relate to setlocale. Have you
tried applying those?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2015
--- You are receiving this mail because
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-29
05:44 ---
By modifying a simple DEF file based on the example in the ld info pages, I get:
./ld-new: foo.def:1: syntax error
I think this has already been fixed. Moreover, there has been no response from
the
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Priority|P2 |P3
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2015
--- You are receiving this mail because:
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-29
05:55 ---
Fixed by:
2005-11-01 Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR gas/1299
* Makefile.am: Disable -Werror for the itbl-lex.o rule.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
If there are con
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-29
06:03 ---
No response from the reporter after almost a year.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-29
06:10 ---
Thanks for your patch -- and to think of archiving your discussion in the bug
tracking system!
I think it is worth proposing that it be incorporated into the mainline tree,
however for a patch of this
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-29
11:26 ---
The two attachments seem to be identical? Is one of them supposed to be app2.o?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2267
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-30
00:22 ---
Fixed with the following patch (which has been committed to mainline CVS):
2006-03-30 Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ld/2267
* elflink.c (elf_fixup_link_order): Ensure `
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-30
00:42 ---
gas and ld use Automake-generated Makefiles. These build the Info documentation
within the source tree so that the Info documentation is present when a
distribution is prepared. GNU conventions are
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-30
03:06 ---
Fixed with this patch (and verified):
2006-03-05 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Alan Modra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR binutils/2338
* dwarf2.c (loadable_section)
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-30
03:20 ---
2006-02-24 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR ld/2218
* elf-bfd.h (elf_backend_data): Add elf_backend_fixup_symbol.
(_bfd_elf_link_hash_fixup_symbol): New.
* elf
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-30
05:33 ---
No test case supplied in almost a year.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-30
05:34 ---
Herbert, can you please supply a test case that helps to demonstrate the
problem?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2097
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-31
02:05 ---
I have examined the problem more extensively. The problem exists up to Texinfo
version 4.3 (and point releases of 4.3). Texinfo 4.4 adds the necessary support
for @include @value and is now the minimum
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-31
02:18 ---
A patch is posted at:
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-03/msg00364.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet|hppa-linux |
GCC target triplet|hppa64-linux|
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1860
--
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-31
02:33 ---
Fixed:
2006-03-31 Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR binutils/1860
* configure.in: Require makeinfo 4.4 or higher.
* configure: Regenerate.
Checking in configure.in
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-31
03:43 ---
The right way to specify tool specific variables is to put them in the
RUNTESTFLAGS variable (relevant section of the runtest man page is shown below).
``Makefile style variables are used to
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|i |
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=594
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC host triplet|ia64-linux-gnu |
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1298
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |minor
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1298
--- You are receiving this mail because: --
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-03-31
05:06 ---
Can you attach two example executables to this bug report (one that binutils
recognises and one that does it does not)? Thanks.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1219
--- You
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |bje at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-04-03
23:56 ---
Thanks for the excellent analysis, Jim. I think I will just rework the code to
avoid this warning.
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1298
--- You are receiving this mail
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |echristo at apple dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |echristo at apple dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |echristo at apple dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |echristo at apple dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |echristo at apple dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |echristo at apple dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |echristo at apple dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |echristo at apple dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|WAITING
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |echristo at apple dot com
|redhat dot com |
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at bigpond dot net
|redhat dot com |dot au
http://sourceware.org/bugzil
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at bigpond dot net
|redhat dot com |dot au
Status|WAITING
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at bigpond dot net
|redhat dot com |dot au
http://sourceware.org/bugzil
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at bigpond dot net
|redhat dot com |dot au
http://sourceware.org/bugzil
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |bje at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |bje at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |bje at sources dot redhat
|redhat dot com |dot com
Status|NEW
--
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Priority|P1 |P2
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2503
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-04-04
01:54 ---
This patch suggests that you are trying to make the disassembler's output
suitable for input back into the assembler, correct? This is not normally
something that the disassembler strives for.
Wha
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at bigpond dot net
|redhat dot com |dot au
http://sourceware.org/bugzil
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at bigpond dot net
|redhat dot com |dot au
http://sourceware.org/bugzil
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-04-04
01:57 ---
Updating priority.
--
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-04-04
06:02 ---
Can you attach some example binaries, please? It does not make sense that
x86-64 binaries produced by a modern version of GCC would produce stabs
debugging info. I suspect your debugging session has
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at sources dot |amodra at bigpond dot net
|redhat dot com |dot au
http://sourceware.org/bugzil
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|binutils|gprof
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2335
--- You are receiving this mail because: --
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-04-06
00:51 ---
It is true that binutils releases do not require maintainer tools like msgfmt.
It is only a requirement when building using snapshots from CVS. I don't think
it's unreasonable to require dev
--
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
Version|unspecified |2.17 (HEAD)
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-04-06
01:08 ---
It's not worth the effort to write a man page as dllwrap is deprecated. You
should not use it for any new code. Use ld --shared instead. If you'd like to
contribute a small placeholder man
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-04-07
00:36 ---
You should not be seeing a .stabs section in an x86 Linux binary, either.
Can you please attach some example binaries to this bug report?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2335
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2006-04-27
06:19 ---
Fixed by:
2006-04-21 Alan Modra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* elf.c (assign_file_positions_except_relocs): Move code setting
file position of non-loaded se
--- Additional Comments From bje at sources dot redhat dot com 2007-03-12
03:25 ---
It may be the same -- Dirk, were you running with --line, by chance?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2335
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC
Severity: critical
Priority: P2
Component: gold
AssignedTo: ian at airs dot com
ReportedBy: bje at sources dot redhat dot com
CC: bug-binutils at gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: powerpc64-linux
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
symbols
Product: binutils
Version: 2.20 (HEAD)
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: ld
AssignedTo: amodra at bigpond dot net dot au
ReportedBy: bje at sources dot redhat dot com
95 matches
Mail list logo
